[Anvh]

Amazon.com: DA* 50-135 for $1300, down from $1600 (MSRP)
DA* 16-50: $1400, down from $1500 (MSRP).
DA* 60-250: still $2000
For now.

Good to see that, looks liked shops didn't know what to precisely do with the change so just used the MSRP price for the time being.
Lets hope that's true and that the minimum price is quite a bit lower.

[Anvh]

I read somewhere on the Internet today that Pentax plans to release more bodies that are priced much lower for mass appeal. Alright! Expensive lenses on cheap ass bodies - that will certainly fly around here, not that they would care much anyway . . .

Has been true for quite some time, the FA* are really never been cheap either compared to the bodies.
With digital it's normal to upgrade the body every 4 years or so but a lens will last you much longer.

[beholder3]

[deleted]

[Aristophanes]

That's the issue here. Every poster feels she/he's the center of the world, where the stars are revolving around it.

The mass photo market is mobile phone "cameras". Mr. Zuckerberg just invested 1 billion in a tiny software company around this. Would he have done this for "pro" DSLR dinosaurs? No.
Pentax went for 0,065 billion as far as I remember.

The remaining market is dominated by people who buy mirrorless, cheap DSLRs and for 80% they dont ever buy a second lens to their kit lens. Maybe a superzoom.

And: Ever looked at the ink printer market?

It's about money. It's not about irrelevant few egos.

To me cheap bodies + 2-4 cheap entry plastic lenses + ridiculously expensive other glass makes sense (not that I like it, but it makes business sense).

Zuckerberg took investor money from the IPO and invested it in a photo app that makes no money whatsoever, with experts all over wondering where any cash flow is in Instagram.

Where have we seen this before?

---

Last edited by Aristophanes; 04-11-2012 at 05:34 AM.

[falconeye]

I tried to disconnect from the entire pricing discussion.

But one point seems worth noting.


Pentax now is a system with only a few competitive edges, esp. as mirrorless and full frame continue to accelerate.

However, there is one particular lens which can give sense to buy into the Pentax system: the stabilized, razor-sharp (in comparison) 4x 60-250 mm zoom. There is no peer and if you want it (even at $2000 it isn't expensive if you compare with other unique lenses like a 200/2G from Nikon ), it absolutely makes sense to add 50% extra and get a K-5 with it.

So, I think the DA* 60-250 is a special case now. Pentax should offer a $500 rebate for long-time Pentax customers though.

[jsherman999]

The mass photo market is mobile phone "cameras". Mr. Zuckerberg just invested 1 billion in a tiny software company around this.

One new-bubble company buying another new-bubble company for a crazy, inflated bubble price.

Facebook is it's own bubble. It's a vastly overvalued company that lives & dies on the whim of an internet meta-meme. It has no real lasting power - sure, it will be around 10 years from now in some form, but it will look more like AOL or MySpace than IBM or GE.

Instagram is something that could be re-implemented soup-to-nuts by a small team of competent software engineers and the right group of marketers and MBAs. It's got about as much staying power as the latest top $0.99 download in the Apple app store.

.

[jsherman999]

However, there is one particular lens which can give sense to buy into the Pentax system: the stabilized, razor-sharp (in comparison) 4x 60-250 mm zoom. There is no peer and if you want it (even at $2000 it isn't expensive if you compare with other unique lenses like a 200/2G from Nikon ), it absolutely makes sense to add 50% extra and get a K-5 with it

It is unique - better range than a 70-200, but slower, more like a 70-200 f/4 but with better range, and very sharp.

SDM is it's Achilles Heel. SDM is slow compared to SWM/HSM/AF-S, and possibly more fault-prone.

If Pentax introduced a new, fast ring motor replacement for SDM, I think all of this would make more sense.

But, to any potential buyer not familiar with SDM - it could be glossed over by a motivated camera store salesperson, and the lens sold on the other (nice) specs alone

.

.

[Aristophanes]

I tried to disconnect from the entire pricing discussion.

But one point seems worth noting.

Pentax now is a system with only a few competitive edges, esp. as mirrorless and full frame continue to accelerate.

However, there is one particular lens which can give sense to buy into the Pentax system: the stabilized, razor-sharp (in comparison) 4x 60-250 mm zoom. There is no peer and if you want it (even at $2000 it isn't expensive if you compare with other unique lenses like a 200/2G from Nikon ), it absolutely makes sense to add 50% extra and get a K-5 with it.

So, I think the DA* 60-250 is a special case now. Pentax should offer a $500 rebate for long-time Pentax customers though.

The 50-135/2.8 is also considered a Pentax unique and well thought of by many as being the best example of an APS-C lens for a very useful zoom FL.

The Limiteds stand alone with their quirky FL's. The DA 15/21/40 and 70mm's are also somewhat unique in being a comprehensive, small format prime lens system for APS-C cameras. 35's and 50's are common, but Pentax went the extra mile to give a full array.

The Pentax lens line-up for APS-C is pretty good, actually. But does it offer enough value to overcome other weaknesses? That's why price discussions are crucial. APS-C is the necessary volume price point, but the lenses are too expensive to sell the brand beyond other limitations.

[falconeye]

It is unique - better range than a 70-200, but slower, more like a 70-200 f/4 but with better range, and very sharp.

SDM is it's Achilles Heel. SDM is slow compared to SWM/HSM

Not in its niche. SDM reliability on the 60-250 seems to be better and focusing still is <1s. Slow for sports and moving wildlife. But in its niche where it serves for landscape, cityscape and street photography it would be fast enough. The niche is where 70-200/2.8 is too heavy.

The 70-200s are no alternative. Except maybe the Canon 70-200/4L and announced Tokina 70-200/4 (if good). But they are 2.9x zooms only, not 4.2x. OTOH, they are a tad lighter.

But I agree, with the forthcoming Tokina AT-X Pro SD 70-200 F4 (IF) FX, there may be less reason for Nikonians to look at the DA*60-250. Maybe, it did not appear on Pentax radar yet.

The 50-135/2.8 is also considered a Pentax unique and well thought of by many as being the best example of an APS-C lens for a very useful zoom FL. The Limiteds stand alone with their quirky FL's. The DA 15/21/40 and 70mm's are also somewhat unique

I know. But I think they are not unique enough to buy into Pentax as a second system. If the DA15 would be a tad sharper in the corners, I would include it as another reason though. Problem is that the smaller DAs compete with mirrorless like the NX200+16mm pancake.

The 50-135/2.8 is an excellent offer. But most people interested are already invested into 70-200/2.8 and/or a full frame body and wouldn't buy into Pentax for this lens.

[AGWoodard]

The Pentax lens line-up for APS-C is pretty good, actually.

I would disagree with that a bit. Nothing above 300mm, (I know they say they are bringing out the 560) no TC's, no extension tubes, no long macro, and again, as stated, the SDM issue, is a concern.

Below 100mm, it is wonderful. But there is some work to be done to bring the Pentax lens line up into the real world of being called a complete system.

Up until a week or so ago, it was also priced nicely.

[oklahomakid93]

That's the issue here. Every poster feels she/he's the center of the world, where the stars are revolving around it.

The mass photo market is mobile phone "cameras". Mr. Zuckerberg just invested 1 billion in a tiny software company around this. Would he have done this for "pro" DSLR dinosaurs? No.
Pentax went for 0,065 billion as far as I remember.

The remaining market is dominated by people who buy mirrorless, cheap DSLRs and for 80% they dont ever buy a second lens to their kit lens. Maybe a superzoom.

And: Ever looked at the ink printer market?

It's about money. It's not about irrelevant few egos.

To me cheap bodies + 2-4 cheap entry plastic lenses + ridiculously expensive other glass makes sense (not that I like it, but it makes business sense).

As big business continues, you're right about the seemingly harsh reality of money trumping the almighty consumer when it comes to making any long-term sense. New units sold to people less informed can do a company wonders when decent products are offered at competitive prices.

The problem is what a successful company does is follow a similar model while continuing to make us guys with over-inflated egos feel important to their mission statement. Canon and Nikon do this extremely well with their offerings of high quality products, yet my bet is the majority of their sales come from products in the price category you mentioned, selling hand over fist to exactly the people you described.

I'm pretty sure most of us are aware the Universe does not revolve around us, but for the many embedded into a hobby or profession, we are constantly expecting quality to sustain our needs (however perceived they may be). The under-educated buyer still buys based on presumed quality. Yes, more Nikon D5100 and Canon Rebels are sold, but my guess is their long standing status of being the professional's choice leads the way. And guess what? If there aren't any pros endorsing your products, then your "niche" becomes recognized and accepted as a toy that's not taken seriously by a mass consumer market, and your dreams of dancing sugar plumbs and wealth while dollars fall out of the sky like snow are likely short-lived at best, most likely drawing a few from people that used to think of Pentax as a capable and respectable brand.

I know you said you don't necessarily agree with tactics like this, and large companies locked in a tunnel-visioned focus in a highly competitive, ever changing field of customers demanding the latest and greatest, as well as the best are committing suicide. Their "niche" needs to be catering to the over-inflated egos, and not some limited range of trinkets people will pass over in favor of the "professional" company offering something similar but with a respected brand name on the front.

Most people are not practical when it comes to buying, no matter how hard we sometimes try. Self-awareness is often too tall an order for someone to realize they should get only what they need and not what they want, even if the "niche only" company offers a cool product that outperforms a rival from a big brand. Admittedly, I am often in the mass majority of customers that want a path to follow, or at least the option for doing so, and sometimes have a hard time believing Pentax would succumb to only being a "niche". I'll hold out hope they'll continue to push forward with their models geared for the serious photographer, or photographer wannabe (that's me) that doesn't want to take pictures with a cheap piece of plastic in a purple housing. And if that truly is Ricoh's plan, then it is a bad one, and I would not expect it to succeed.

[falconeye]

I'm pretty sure most of us are aware the Universe does not revolve around us

I'm not intelligent enough to understand what you're going to say.

But for a photo company. it is excatly us the Universe does revolve around.

Some companies already got the call and understand they have to specialize in order to compete (e.g., Zeiss on optics, Sony on sensors, Basler on machine vision etc.). But the bulk of the photo industry didn't understand they are all going to disappear. Camera (modules) will be ubiquitous and not sold standalone by the consumer anymore. Mobile phones are just one example. Cars, doors, medical devices etc. are others. And using lens array technology, mobile phones will soon beat APSC cameras in image quality (because they'll have a larger overall sensor surface -- 3x3 mobile phone chips beat it). The bulk of the photo industry can't become phone, car, door manufactureres. Even the sensor and optics supplier niches are well populated (think of what Sony for Apple, or Zeiss for Nokia were able to do).

So, it is a few professionals and a larger number of enthusiast photographers who have photography as a hobby what all remaining photo companies will revolve around. Very easy.


Btw, what are "having fun" and "over-inflated egos" have to do with each other? But I already said, I'm not intelligent enough to understand what you're going to say.

[beholder3]

[deleted]

[Aristophanes]

I would disagree with that a bit. Nothing above 300mm, (I know they say they are bringing out the 560) no TC's, no extension tubes, no long macro, and again, as stated, the SDM issue, is a concern.

Below 100mm, it is wonderful. But there is some work to be done to bring the Pentax lens line up into the real world of being called a complete system.

Up until a week or so ago, it was also priced nicely.

You've referenced what are, and always have been, mostly exotic lenses, and very high-priced ones as well.

TC's and extension tubes are not really necessary at APS-C. Long macros have always been very expensive one-offs. Above 300mm in APSC you are already at 450mm in 135 equivalent with the 550-300 and DA*300. Super teles were always a very tiny, niche market.

As for SDM, it sounds like this is a fixable issue that may have been properly addressed.

Flash, tethering, articulated LCD's, and wireless are where Pentax lags.

Overall, what will make or break the brand is value pricing.

[rparmar]

Instagram is something that could be re-implemented soup-to-nuts by a small team of competent software engineers and the right group of marketers and MBAs. It's got about as much staying power as the latest top $0.99 download in the Apple app store.

This misses the point. Instagram were there first and have established enormous market share growth. This is what Facebook have bought and there is no equivalent. Re-implementing the software will not convert the existing customers.

Projections show that market share for phones in the photography sector will continue to go through the roof. Point'n'shoot cameras are dying. Likewise, tablets will cannibalise laptop sales. In both cases mobile apps are the winners for mind share.

Facebook is very likely getting their money's worth.