[oklahomakid93]

I can short the heck out of guitar. I can drive feral cats wild for miles and miles and miles. :Hysterical: Just call me Guitarzan.

Guitarzan - YouTube

That's great. Strange, I was just thinking about him the other day. I've been on a 70's kick on YouTube, watching Glen Campbell, Jerry Reed, Gordon Lightfoot and others, and saw a Ray Stevens video someone put together on "The Streak".

The last time I saw him in the store, he looked like he did in that picture. Not bad for a guy getting up there. Of course that was a couple of years ago, but still.

[bossa]

Not? I just picked my son up from guitar practice today, and he was definitely wearing his Fender over his shoulder when he approached me! No, wait, it's actually a Squire Stratocaster, so you're right

Seeing as Squire is also a Fender I'm not sure I understand your point. I guess if it's some kind of serious accessory then an L series would be the way to go though.

[monochrome]

Market share with no revenues!

Technically, that's not a market because there is no exchange of value.

Instagram may get the "rights" to license your photo. A few billion of those per year and the fun will fade away.

Paying $1 billion for customers who would likely already be FB users is redundant. Many analysts are scratching their heads over this one...with good reason. It's $1 billion chasing a product with no cash flow.

He really means it. NO cash flow. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Nothing. 18 months old. 25 employees. Never sold anything, no money has changed hands - and the shareholders got $1 billion. Kid graduated from Stanford 3 yearts ago - $200 million cash, $200 million in FB stock. Secretaries got $3,000,000.

Late 90's all over again?

Be of quiet circumspection, social networkers. I am absolutely certain FB has a plan to monetize that $1,000,000,000, and you probably won't be happy when they do.

[Class A]

There is no peer [for the 60-250/4] 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.

I do not like to disagree with you, but I feel if there is a dealer margin of $700+ on a lens, it is too expensive.

It may not be "too expensive" compared to what you get from other manufacturers for the same price. But that just means that their offers are too expensive as well (assuming that they sell with comparable dealer margins too).

I do not understand the concept of a 35% dealer margin.

1. The percentage is way too high.
2. Why have percentage based margins at all? Why not make a similar margin independently on what is in the box you shift?

I know, there is this idea of the informed dealer who gives you advice and additional service that corresponds to the value of the item. This idea could justify a percentage margin.

However, the reality is that the vast majority of dealers know less then you can gather from browsing the internet for half a day. The reality is that many dealers will try to push a certain product that they get big margins for, independently of product quality. I have witnessed this dealer behaviour numerous times in shops.

I could perhaps bring myself to pay an inflated price like $2000 for the 60-250/4 to Pentax directly. (I'm calling it inflated because clearly it was profitable to sell it for $1300 as well.) But to pay in excess of $700 to a dealer who is essentially just a box shifter -- online shop or B&M doesn't really make a difference in the vast majority of cases; at least with the online shop you don't have to defend your Pentax choice against recommendations for Canikon -- I have considerable trouble with.

Even if I really wanted to own a 60-250/4 and thought that it would be worth parting with $2000, it would be against my gut feeling to support a scheme were a dealer gets rich for next to no service.

---

Last edited by Class A; 04-11-2012 at 07:04 PM.

[falconeye]

Well I for one am curious to know how FB is going to monetize the IGram investment. After all, you don't drop a $Billion on someting and not expect to get money back.

It's like our disagreement about FF. I say, if you have to do it, do it now. You say, if it doesn't pay, don't do it.

FB had to do it. They want to be THE information hub. And that includes to be THE address where mobile users upload their media to. At least if you believe into the cloud idea.

[falconeye]

I do not like to disagree with you, but I feel if there is a dealer margin of $700+ on a lens, it is too expensive.

I agree. Esp. as I fear the margins haven't been slim before.

I really like the idea of competitive vendor stores, like Apple or Dell. Then at least, the margin remains with the vendor to be invested into new products. I don't understand why everybody keeps feeding Amazon et al.

[Class A]

I really like the idea of competitive vendor stores, like Apple or Dell. Then at least, the margin remains with the vendor to be invested into new products.

+1

Ideally prices would not differ much between different countries. Ricoh made a step towards the latter goal, but of course everyone would have preferred the US prices maybe to go up a little and prices in other countries (where they are currently ridiculous like in NZ) to come down. Hopefully there is a part 2 to the Ricoh "unilateral pricing" strategy.

[monochrome]

It's like our disagreement about FF. I say, if you have to do it, do it now. You say, if it doesn't pay, don't do it.

FB had to do it. They want to be THE information hub. And that includes to be THE address where mobile users upload their media to. At least if you believe into the cloud idea.

I didn't mean I don't think it will pay - I'm quite certain they have a plan to make it pay.

[gazonk]

Seeing as Squire is also a Fender I'm not sure I understand your point. I guess if it's some kind of serious accessory then an L series would be the way to go though.

I didn't have any point - just joking (the fact that Squire is a Fender brand had already been mentioned earlier).

[pingflood]

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.

Well, they did have a Tokina version of the same lens (now discontinued), and there is the Sigma 50-150/2.8 which has gotten some very good reviews.

[pingflood]

Funnily enough many enthusiasts change their gear far more frequently. a lot of D 4 sales will probably be to guys who bought the D3 in 2007, so 5 years. OTOH in the same time frame here many who are crying out for a FF have owned a K10, K20, K7, K5. this cost them about the same as just buying the D3 and living with it for the 5 years.

You can definitely end up with a smaller total cost of ownership if you purchase higher end gear. If you buy say a Canon supertele now, you will most likely be able to recoup your entire investment in five years. Prices keep rising, and used prices keep following. As for bodies, I bought my 1Ds II 3.5 years ago for $2000. Today I could sell it for $1700 or so. That is less than a hundred bucks a year in cost of ownership, and I get to shoot with an excellent full frame pro camera.

But if you buy cheaper models and cheaper lenses, the loss in value is near-immediate and you will never recover it.

[bossa]

I do not like to disagree with you, but I feel if there is a dealer margin of $700+ on a lens, it is too expensive.



Even if I really wanted to own a 60-250/4 and thought that it would be worth parting with $2000, it would be against my gut feeling to support a scheme were a dealer gets rich for next to no service.

I bought a 60-250 & 55 from the same seller on eBay two weeks ago used for 1600. They are 3 months old and mint and I am shocked at how good this zoom really is after trying out two others previously. It has not come off of my K-5 for a second and it's probably going to retire a 50-135, da200 & Fa300 f4.5. It nails focus almost every time and for $900 I'm extremely happy. It would have to be worth 2 grand if there was a 3 year warranty.

[eddie1960]

I agree. Esp. as I fear the margins haven't been slim before.

I really like the idea of competitive vendor stores, like Apple or Dell. Then at least, the margin remains with the vendor to be invested into new products. I don't understand why everybody keeps feeding Amazon et al.

+1, But Vendor stores apparently don't always help, Sony has loads of them
Still part of Pentax's exposure woes could be solved by well designed vendor stores in key malls. Given the size of the offerings available they need not be huge. Competitive is the key, If they are priced higher than all the other outlets by significant margins they will just lose money.
Whatever happened to the store they were going to open in Colorado?

[eddie1960]

You can definitely end up with a smaller total cost of ownership if you purchase higher end gear. If you buy say a Canon supertele now, you will most likely be able to recoup your entire investment in five years. Prices keep rising, and used prices keep following. As for bodies, I bought my 1Ds II 3.5 years ago for $2000. Today I could sell it for $1700 or so. That is less than a hundred bucks a year in cost of ownership, and I get to shoot with an excellent full frame pro camera.

But if you buy cheaper models and cheaper lenses, the loss in value is near-immediate and you will never recover it.

True. It's one of the arguments for Leica being a low cost system over all. but the cost of entry is quite high

[Medium FormatPro]

multi lens array cell phones will make apsc quality available in a cell phone in the not too distant future

Partially agreed; and quite the impressive reply, but...

Let me please go over the ole digital and even film debate. Anyone remebr the old Kodak Disc cameras? they were great for battery power and actually had an above average built in lens - that far surpassed the size of the film.

In relation to size of film, digital cameras are much the same. It won't be all that long into the future before the world eventually sees a 40mp++ sensor even in a Pentax slr (yet not medium format). But for digital - not only is it the mp in sensor quality (in addition to optics), but it is also very much the size of the sensor. Which is exactly why an existing Pentax 645D, Hasselblad 40mp, PhaseOne 40mp, etc... are so much better than any smaller 40mp sensor.

...And then there's optics. Sure I wouldn't mind carrying around a smaller (and lighter) lens; and btw some of the less expensive lens' are indeed smaller and lighter than the quality ones which are considerably larger and heavier.

So given any mobile phone size (or even tablet size such as a future iPad 8??) that the consumer will face a number of issues; sensor size, optic quality, etc... But please don't let these issues keep anyone from making a mobile Leica device