[fuent104]

This is small-potatoes in comparison. Kodak failed because they were in deep denial about digital as a disruptive technology, and couldn't realign their strategy and culture. Pentax is clearly more agile than that — in fact, they're demonstrating that by making changes like this one, and by releasing the Q system even though everyone thinks it's crazy. But more importantly, this is just a pricing change. Maybe it's a misstep, but it's pretty easy to tweak if the numbers say it isn't working out.

Right now, it may be that the retail prices are too high for the market. With the new legal tool offered by the Supreme Court decision, Pentax has the ability to assert more direct control over the supply side of the equation, and it looks like they see an advantage in using that.

It sucks for people who want to buy Pentax lenses cheap. It feels unfair to long-time loyal customers. It even risks losing many of those loyal customers. But how much will all of those things actually hurt them? Are there long-term benefits which might outweigh the losses — preventing a Kodak-style meltdown in the future? Hard to say from where I'm sitting — and, I think, from where you're sitting.

Your assessment about Kodak is harsh and only partially accurate. Kodak did recognize the potential for digital imagery. They were pioneers in the field in many ways, including the development of the digital internegative process that is the standard in motion pictures today (but was too far ahead of its time to catch on when Kodak originated it).

I'm sure most people would agree that they were not able to prosper in the digital marketplace, but it is always easier to have a vision than it is to execute in a profitable manner.

It's a shame to me that people aren't more aware of Kodak's role in digital imagery. I probably also feel the need to defend them because I've been to their building several times, and they've always been generous with their time and with helping student filmmakers.

[fuent104]

By the way, what I'm specifically referring to about Kodak's role in the digital internegative process is their creation of the Cineon file format. A derivative of this is what is currently used for high resolution / bit depth motion picture scans (for color grading, etc.) They also created a "look management" workflow process, which enabled filmmakers to create "looks" for their motion pictures, which could be standardized and carried through the entire motion picture pipeline. Today, the use of LUTs (look up tables) is popular among digital filmmakers, and it is the descendent of Kodak's look management concept.

Kodak also pioneered and sold digital slrs long before anybody else did. They just couldn't make it profitable for themselves.

[Blue]

Oh, and how about the new K-mount roadmap full of lenses? Are they lies? Probably after they'll launch you'll claim the products are lies as well, or that K-mount will be killed just after that?
Get real, the K-mount is here to stay!

You just got your hair parted with sarcasm. However, as Eddie pointed out nothing is permanent. Ask Minolta. As far as the roadmap goes, you mean this roadmap with some un-named lenses on it. Furthermore, I said it had crossed my mind regarding the k-mount. I don't know where you came up with the "lie" business but there is no need for that. If you go back to the threads when Ricoh was announced as the new buyer, you will see I was always a k-mount advocate.

http://www.pentaximaging.com/files/pdf/lens_roadmap.pdf

They announced a 560mm but it isn't even directly named on that map. The DA 50/1.8 is marked only by a dot and not named. Even the DA RC 1.4x is pushed out until 2013.

nothing is permanent Kunzite but i agree the K mount is around for a while yet. the investment in Pentax wouldn't have made sense otherwise

He just didn't understand the part where I said "it had crossed my mind." It is probably a language barrier.

[pingflood]

It's a shame to me that people aren't more aware of Kodak's role in digital imagery. I probably also feel the need to defend them because I've been to their building several times, and they've always been generous with their time and with helping student filmmakers.

I agree. A lot of people just think "durr Kodak missed the digital train" when they were way way ahead before losing their way. They had the very first digital camera back in the 1970s(!), had the first viable and heavily used DSLR for photojournalists, had an AA-filter-less 14MP full frame DSLR back in what, 2004?, etc etc. They also had a monochrome DSLR or two (560m is the one I remember).

Huge innovators, but made a lot of bad decisions.

[mattdm]

That wasn't a fiasco - that was the smart thing to do for Canon and they had the guts to do it.

It was for the folks that Canon L glass and other premium FD glass.

This speaks to my point very well. I'm sure many loyal Canon customers were fuming. And we all know how that story turned out, with Canon bankrupt and in ruins, right?

[Docrwm]

This speaks to my point very well. I'm sure many loyal Canon customers were fuming. And we all know how that story turned out, with Canon bankrupt and in ruins, right?

Just because a market leader makes a decision that PO's most of their current customers and lives does not make it either a) a good decision or b) something a market lagger can or should emulate.

[mattdm]

Your assessment about Kodak is harsh and only partially accurate. Kodak did recognize the potential for digital imagery. They were pioneers in the field in many ways, including the development of the digital internegative process that is the standard in motion pictures today (but was too far ahead of its time to catch on when Kodak originated it).

I'm sure most people would agree that they were not able to prosper in the digital marketplace, but it is always easier to have a vision than it is to execute in a profitable manner.

It's a shame to me that people aren't more aware of Kodak's role in digital imagery. I probably also feel the need to defend them because I've been to their building several times, and they've always been generous with their time and with helping student filmmakers.

Yes! This is exactly it. Let me re-quote for emphasis:

it is always easier to have a vision than it is to execute in a profitable manner.

They had great engineering, amazing innovation, and what's more, internally they saw the potential of the emerging new market. But they couldn't bring themselves to take the necessary disruptive steps.

Now, I'm not arguing that Pentax's pricing policy is one of those necessary steps. It might be silly. I'm really not equipped to judge — I'll get back to you in ten years. My guess, though, is that it'll work itself out, as I said before.

[mattdm]

Just because a market leader makes a decision that PO's most of their current customers and lives does not make it either a) a good decision or b) something a market lagger can or should emulate.

Stepping back a big again: Pentax shows no sign of ditching the K mount. In fact, they brought out a whole mirrorless system based around it, even though one can make the really good argument that that's a technically silly thing to do.

This is nothing on that scale.

[Blue]

This speaks to my point very well. I'm sure many loyal Canon customers were fuming. And we all know how that story turned out, with Canon bankrupt and in ruins, right?

You missed the bigger point. Canon wasn't at 5% of the market when they did that. Plus, Pentax's k-mount was already advanced enough to do AF which was the biggest reason for dumping on the FD breech lock. I don't see how Pentax can alienate 60 to 70% of its historical base and expect to replace them at a 2 to 1 ratio just to get ahead. If it were that easy to get ahead, they would be at 10% dslr sales instead of 5%. Pentax hasn't dumped the mount. They have put it in a range when the warranty is taken into account where other factors will be taken into account. For example, the Nikkor 200mm/4 micro is $1649 shipped and has a 5 year warranty. That isn't bad for a new AF macro lens in that focal length. The DA* 200mm/2.8 is currently $1200 from the same place with a 1 year warranty and it isn't a macro.

[Blue]

I agree. A lot of people just think "durr Kodak missed the digital train" when they were way way ahead before losing their way. They had the very first digital camera back in the 1970s(!), had the first viable and heavily used DSLR for photojournalists, had an AA-filter-less 14MP full frame DSLR back in what, 2004?, etc etc. They also had a monochrome DSLR or two (560m is the one I remember).

Huge innovators, but made a lot of bad decisions.

I guess people forgot what sensor was/is in the 645D.

[Kunzite]

Whatever Pentax is doing in the U.S., it can't be compared with changed the mount.

You just got your hair parted with sarcasm. However, as Eddie pointed out nothing is permanent. Ask Minolta. As far as the roadmap goes, you mean this roadmap with some un-named lenses on it. Furthermore, I said it had crossed my mind regarding the k-mount. I don't know where you came up with the "lie" business but there is no need for that. If you go back to the threads when Ricoh was announced as the new buyer, you will see I was always a k-mount advocate.

http://www.pentaximaging.com/files/pdf/lens_roadmap.pdf

They announced a 560mm but it isn't even directly named on that map. The DA 50/1.8 is marked only by a dot and not named. Even the DA RC 1.4x is pushed out until 2013.

Nothing is permanent, but some things just won't die. Ask Pentax.

It's certainly named on the latest roadmap and so is the DA 50mm, but Pentax Imaging (USA) couldn't be bothered to update it: http://www.pentax.jp/english/products/lens/K_Mount_Lens.pdf
The DA 1.4x TC seemed to have been postponed indefinitely by Hoya, I'm glad it's back - even if for 2013.

The "lie" business? I fail to see why you can be even remotely upset by the use of this word, as it wasn't directed at you. If the 560mm would be the last K-mount on the roadmap it definitely means the roadmap is a lie. That's simple logic, they promise something but don't deliver. It's also ridiculous, to launch such a highly expensive lens then just stop, killing the K-mount - thus making sure they won't get the R&D money back.
I understood perfectly that it only "crossed your mind" but still, it's ridiculous.

P.S. You were stirring up the bee hive, but surprised at the result?

[Blue]

Whatever Pentax is doing in the U.S., it can't be compared with changed the mount.


Nothing is permanent, but some things just won't die. Ask Pentax.

I don't need to ask Pentax. I have been with K-mount ever since its inception. It isn't just in the U.S.A. that the prices have been elevated. It is happening in other countries as well. Look at the Nikkor 200/4 example above. That puts them in an area price was and warranty wise that people will start taking into consideration. That is not the best place for a 5% "niche" company to be in. There are some folks that still shun Canon over the FD thing. Canon was a diverse large corp and they transitioned by deep pockets. Plus, a law suite by Honeywell against Minolta helped them out a lot by putting a big burden on Minolta.

It's certainly named on the latest roadmap and so is the DA 50mm, but Pentax Imaging (USA) couldn't be bothered to update it: http://www.pentax.jp/english/products/lens/K_Mount_Lens.pdf
The DA 1.4x TC seemed to have been postponed indefinitely by Hoya, I'm glad it's back - even if for 2013.

So the DA 50/1.8 and DA 560/5.6 is on there. That still isn't a Road Map "full of lenses" like you stated earlier. It is 2 named lenses, 4 mystery lenses and a TC they have been holding up for 6 years. Outside of the 560 and TC, the only interesting thing on there is the mention of a DA Zoom LTD!

The "lie" business? I fail to see why you can be even remotely upset by the use of this word, as it wasn't directed at you. If the 560mm would be the last K-mount on the roadmap it definitely means the roadmap is a lie. That's simple logic, they promise something but don't deliver. It's also ridiculous, to launch such a highly expensive lens then just stop, killing the K-mount - thus making sure they won't get the R&D money back.
I understood perfectly that it only "crossed your mind" but still, it's ridiculous.

You said I called someone a liar. I did not. I don't know why you think wondering about the history of the k-mount is ridiculous. That has been a concern every since '89. A year ago, you would have said the thought of Ricoh buying Pentax was ridiculous. I hope the k-mount is around a long time.

P.S. You were stirring up the bee hive, but surprised at the result?

I wasn't the one being rigid about possibilities.

[AGWoodard]

More good news. It appears Pentax's raping of their customer base has now spread to the used market as well.

KEH has a 15mm Ltd for 599 in LN condition.

[Quicksand]

More good news. It appears Pentax's raping of their customer base has now spread to the used market as well.

KEH has a 15mm Ltd for 599 in LN condition.

(1) Yikes! Hyperbolic much?

(2) KEH is selling that lens; Pentax isn't.

(3) Really, "raping"?

[Docrwm]

More good news. It appears Pentax's raping of their customer base has now spread to the used market as well.

KEH has a 15mm Ltd for 599 in LN condition.

Couldn't find that one but did find a 31/1.8 for $959 LN ($30 less than BNIB from Adorama) and a 77/1.8 for $759 LN ($25 less than BNIB from Adorama).