[eddie1960]

Uuhhhh, considering the weak presence of Pentax in South-East Asia, that would be a VERY tall order...
Finding them in Thailand is tough. Singapore? Not there. Same in KL. Cambodia was the first country I saw a shop carrying Pentax...
China? No one cares for Pentax there, I've seen 2 guys with a Pentax in 4 months there, compared to bazillions with Canikon.

Problem is, distribution in Asia is way more problematic: there are few big shops as Fnac (in Europe), or Adorama (in the US).
So you have to cater to A LOT of very small shops, and that's no easy task.

It wouldn't surprise me that Pentax is 5 or 6th in Asia, behind Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Sony and/or Panasonic.
When you see their presence on the shelves, it's no surprise. Pentax is nowhere to be seen.

Last time I paid attention here (Thailand), Ricoh had much more exposure than Pentax.
For Pentax to gain marketshares, I can't begin to imagine the investment in both money and time needed. Even with the backing of Ricoh.


France/Europe, where users are more conscious about Price/Performance, Pentax has a much better presence. It would be much easier to start there indeed, and build from there.

But Asia? I am a little doubtful, unfortunately...

Small share in Asia currently is moot. it is the biggest emerging market (particularly China and India) and pursuing that market is required. Share everywhere is minimal, Japan being the strongest followed by Europe. If as you say Ricoh has a good presence then there are distribution channels in place for Pentax to leverage.
Given the population of China and India even a small share will amount to more sales than a bigger share in Europe or the US

[stanleyk]

Sorry to be so contradictory:

Extremely few people, probably less than 1%, buy 35/1.4 or 85/1.4 lenses. Whats really needed are professional grade zooms and high quality consumer zooms for FF. 95% of lenses sold are zooms.

I use Nikon G series zooms. They are semi-professional grade. Personally I think the 80-200mm D is a better lens than the 70-200mm G, but that's a debatable point. I guess I'm weird, but I don't see the point in spending $2500 or more on a camera body and sticking a $300 plastic lens on it. Some of the Nikon plastic lenses are Ok, but you really don't need an expensive FF body for those lenses, and they probably will really not be good on the D800. I can assure you that the 35mm F1.4 and 85mm F1.4 G lenses are better than the 24-70mm F2.8 G. I use all three. I only use the zoom when I feel lazy. I just got the 80-200. I haven't used it enough to form an opinion on it other than I think at the very least the build quality is head and shoulders better than the 70-200.

[falconeye]

I use Nikon G series zooms. They are semi-professional grade. Personally I think the 80-200mm D is a better lens than the 70-200mm G, but that's a debatable point.

Thanks for addressing this.

I was convinced the 70-200/2.8G is a lot sharper than the 80-200/2.8D and the 70-200/2.8GII is another significant step better. This is what I learn from photozone and what Nikon users tell. What makes you believe otherwise? I am curious.

And no doubt, the 70-200/2.8GII is a professional grade rather than semi-pro. There are almost no sharper lenses I am aware of, primes included.

[viggen]

Small share in Asia currently is moot. it is the biggest emerging market (particularly China and India) and pursuing that market is required. Share everywhere is minimal, Japan being the strongest followed by Europe. If as you say Ricoh has a good presence then there are distribution channels in place for Pentax to leverage.
Given the population of China and India even a small share will amount to more sales than a bigger share in Europe or the US

I don't disagree.

You just have to consider that Pentax is starting from very very far in those key markets.
As you say, a small share may amount to bigger sales than in Europe; however, to reach that threshold, Pentax WILL have to spend SO MUCH in advertisement that I am not convinced it is going to happen anytime soon.

Guys in India and China buy products that will reinforce their social status, their image.
When you have ad campaigns with Jacky Chan using a Canon, it's hard to fight back. Distribution channels will not change anything in that case. Pentax could have the best camera ever, it still wouldn't sell that well because of lack of image.

In Western markets however, we kind of know it doesn't work completely that way, which is why Pentax is performing a bit better. Making products that have a better price/performance ratio than the competition is something that actually works.

Ricoh has better presence than Pentax, but still lightyears away from the other guys.
Meaning you get to actually see some models, in some shops. Better than "Oh, didn't they go bankrupt?" when asking about Pentax.
You see Canikon & co in ANY shop... With multiple lenses.


I repeat, I am basically not disagreeing with you. I am saying that increasing the distribution channels should come in support of increased communication efforts. Just making the bodies go on the shelves will not help as much as you say, and as it stands NOW, it is wasted effort.
South-East asians/Chinese/Indians are very sensitive to products from Japan and the West, and are also very sensitive to products "carried" by their icons. If you want to have some kind of success without that, you will be limited to a small success. Very small.
Here, buying brand identity as you say isn't so cheap. That's the problem.

[falconeye]

As you say, a small share may amount to bigger sales than in Europe

Please don't exaggerate. India and China are "only" 2.5x the size of EU. And only a small fraction of their population has any buying power. It is changing. But only as fast as we pump our money there (without influx of foreign money (contract production), their economies would collapse, so influx can never be higher than our own economies can create)...

EDIT:

To explain what I mean in more simple terms (and oversimplifying): The deal the post-industrial economies right now have with China et al. roughly is as follows: "We send you the design, machines and parts for two cameras, you assemble and keep one, ship one back".

This way to view it gets the contorted capital streams out of the argument. And then it becomes clear that sales to China and India is a "dependent" volume: they can only consume a given percentage of our own consumation. Of course, not necessarily camera for camera. But you get the idea. It will change as soon as China et al. innovate and design own products and machines.

But in any case, it is a good strategy to try to stay competitive in the mature markets.

[dgaies]

Thanks for addressing this.

I was convinced the 70-200/2.8G is a lot sharper than the 80-200/2.8D and the 70-200/2.8GII is another significant step better. This is what I learn from photozone and what Nikon users tell. What makes you believe otherwise? I am curious.

And no doubt, the 70-200/2.8GII is a professional grade rather than semi-pro. There are almost no sharper lenses I am aware of, primes included.

The 70-200/2.8GII is an outstanding lens. It also works very well with Nikon's TCs, which is a plus too. Throw their 1.4x on there and you basically end up with a 100-300/4 while retaining full AF and VR. In terms of IQ, you'd be hard pressed to know there was a TC on there

I've never used the 80-200/2.8D, but I have used both the 80-200/2.8 AF-S and the original 70-200/2.8G, and both are excellent as well. I think the addition of VR and the extra width of the 70-200 make it the better choice over the 80-200, but optically I don't recall them being too far apart. I think I'd give the edge to the 70-200, but on FX the corners are perhaps a little soft wide open. The second version of the 70-200 certainly improves on the corner performance (on FX) and the VR is more effective. The downside of the newer version is that the max magnification is about 25-30% less (as far as I recall).

[jsherman999]

Personally I think the 80-200mm D is a better lens than the 70-200mm G, but that's a debatable point.

If you're talking about the 70-200 VR II, i's not debatable - the 70-200 is much better. (and much more expensive.) I think the older 70-200 is also better optically, just not as good as the VR II version in the corners on FF.

I guess I'm weird, but I don't see the point in spending $2500 or more on a camera body and sticking a $300 plastic lens on it.

That's not weird - just wrong, and a myth. Pick the right lenses for $300 and under, and they are excellent on FF (and aps-c.)

Some of the Nikon plastic lenses are Ok, but you really don't need an expensive FF body for those lenses, and they probably will really not be good on the D800.

Again, depends on which lenses you're talking about. A lens that's no good on aps-c is going to probably be no nood on FF as well. However, any lens will show higher MTF/resolution on the D800 vs D700. Here, know this:

1) To get the optimal performance, you'll need the highest resolving lens (and mirror-up, tripod, etc.)
2) No lens will perform worse on the D800 vs. D700 - they all will resolve better, and give you a more detailed shot at typical display sizes.

That second point is hard for a lot of folks to wrap their head around, because it seems contradictory to the first... but it's not.

Another way to look at it - to get the utmost, top performance from the D800, to use every last bit of it's resolving capability, you will need the highest-resolving lens across the frame, use mirror lock-up and a tripod. But to simply get better resolution than the D700, go ahead and shoot your same good (not even great) lenses handheld!

.

---

Last edited by jsherman999; 03-01-2012 at 07:52 AM.

[stanleyk]

The 70-200/2.8GII is an outstanding lens. It also works very well with Nikon's TCs, which is a plus too. Throw their 1.4x on there and you basically end up with a 100-300/4 while retaining full AF and VR. In terms of IQ, you'd be hard pressed to know there was a TC on there

You're probably right. I got the 70-200 but when I read about the 80-200 I exchanged it. The 80-200 is metal (I like metal.....). Plus I only needed it for a couple of things so it was also $900 cheaper. I'm going to take it out this weekend and give it a whirl. I usually like to be very close to what I'm taking pictures of because my eyesight isn't so great anymore. I think the 80-200 is an older design too so the 70-200 is probably better if you use those focal lengths a lot.

I guess I sounded kind of rude, but what I kind of meant was with good lenses you don't really lose money on them so they are worth the investment. Bodies you get killed on.

[falconeye]

A lens that's no good on aps-c is going to probably be no nood on FF as well.

Add to this that for a given image quality, APS-C needs better optical performance than FF (which is less wide, magnifies less and is stopped down more).

So, spending more on the body (FF) and less in glass is a viable strategy as it may reduce overall cost. Esp. if paired with a D700. Counterintuitive and most FF buyers want the best (read expensive glass and a D800 now). But other strategies are working too.

[jsherman999]

So, spending more on the body (FF) and less in glass is a viable strategy as it may reduce overall cost. Esp. if paired with a D700.

Yes, and that is counterintuitive or at least contrary to popular belief. But the D700 paired with inexpensive but very good lenses is one of the best ways to get fantastic IQ and performance now, especially considering the dropping price of D700 (new & used) that we'll soon see. And the D700 files will be much easier on your workflow, storage, and it's got a better FPS rate... so it remains an excellent choice. I wonder if that's why B&H offered the lower $2200 price for a few days and then bumped it back up to $2550 - demand surge.


.

[Clavius]

Ok, so the bigger sensor (FF) demands less quality from the lens then the smaller sensor. (APSC) Resulting in an expensive body, but cheaper lenses. I'll buy that. But that brings me to another question. If the sensor gets even bigger, why does that glass get more expensive again? Either this theory is wrong, or the price setting of 645 glass is wrong. In other words, with this theory in mind, it is strange that FF glass is cheaper then both APSC and 645 glass.

[Parallax]

If the sensor gets even bigger, why does that glass get more expensive again? Either this theory is wrong, or the price setting of 645 glass is wrong.

Not necessarily. It costs at least as much for R&D and manufacturing of 645 lenses as it does the others, but they sell a whole lot fewer of them, so the price has to be higher.

[falconeye]

Either this theory is wrong, or the price setting of 645 glass is wrong. In other words, with this theory in mind, it is strange that FF glass is cheaper then both APSC and 645 glass.

You must, of course, compare equivalent lenses.
30/1.4 APSC, 50/2 FF, 75/2.8 MF
And the price decreases with increasing format indeed. MF however has other market forces driven by body prices which are 5-digit $. Even Pentax MF lenses would be cheaper if sold in FF or APSC quantity.

[stanleyk]

Yes, and that is counterintuitive or at least contrary to popular beliefs. But the D700 paired with inexpensive but very good lenses is one of the best ways to get fantastic IQ and performance now, especially considering the dropping price of D700 (new & used) that we'll soon see. And the D700 files will be much easier on your workflow, storage, and it's got a better FPS rate... so it remains an excellent choice. I wonder if that's why B&H offered the lower $2200 price for a few days and then bumped it back up to $2550 - demand surge.


.

I paid $2200 for mine last year. What do you think is a good price to list it for? I'm going to throw in a 50mm 1.4 and 35mm F2.0. Any help would be appreciated. I'm not in a hurry because I don't know when the D800 is shipping.

[jsherman999]

I paid $2200 for mine last year. What do you think is a good price to list it for? I'm going to throw in a 50mm 1.4 and 35mm F2.0. Any help would be appreciated. I'm not in a hurry because I don't know when the D800 is shipping.

Wrong guy to ask, I'm debating this question as well!

Thing is, I sort of want to keep the D700, it's faster, files are smaller, and it's ideally suited for certain things (vs D800.) But I also want the K-5 replacement to shoot my Limiteds on...

It's getting hard to justify everything even using my APJSVM (Advanced Purchase Justification and Self Validation Mechanism)





.