[Blue]

Really? They spent $115,000,000 for a tiny mirrorless, a 10,000-Unit, $10,000 MF and some patents?

Then they showed a new K-mount (different) MILC, promised new lenses in K-mount and ceased disturbing their global dealer network by allowing US retailers to exploit the gray market overseas?

They're protecting their established non-US markets against cannibalism by US online retailers as much as they're rebuilding the US.

AFA K-mount goes - OK - but be sure to bundle an adapter with contacts. If it works like the old crippled KAF-2 or -3, BFD.

Why not just block the gray market?

[Blue]

how did they do that then?

doing that would be complete suicide besides.
pentax is nothing without k-mount IMO

the compact primes are the main thing going for pentax.
without K-mount there is 645 and Q - neither are a mass market product why would they buy Pentax for that if they want any sort of profit!?

He is referring to the days when Ricoh ran the K-mount. They shifted away from it with their attempts at af but their slr line crashed and burned after that. There was a similar story with Chinon.

[luftfluss]

If you really believe that, why are you even here? Why shoot this brand if you feel they're inferior?



You can be sure they ran simulations and did a lot of research before deciding this. The U.S. has been a small portion of their market for a lot of years now, made worse by Hoya's utter lack of interest in promoting growth in the U.S.

Pentax, if they have any sense at all, is considering the markets where they do make most of their sales, and understandably want to prevent the U.S. sellers from screwing that up.

I'm perfectly happy with paying for my Pentax lenses, because I reckon they are worth it. If you think they're inferior, then feel free to switch brands, but there are plenty of people out there who think Pentax glass is high quality.

I honestly can't see a downside to this. Pentax get more visibility in B&M stores, retailers get better margins and users end up with more money to spare because they can't afford to spend it all on lenses :P

The glass is high quality, but SDM issues and a minimal one year warranty and infamously slipshod QC scream "CHEAP!!!"

[lurchlarson]

Help retailers? When I talk with online salesmen, they never tell me that Pentax products are jumping off their shelves.....in fact the opposite is more often mentioned. How anyone thinks doubling the prices will help retailers is not in tune with reality. Is there anyone here....anyone....speak up....that has seen the new prices and said to themselves, "Wow!, look at that increase, now is the time for me to buy!" If so, are you the same one that sees the high gas prices and decides on a longer driving vacation, or taking the long way to work?

There is no incentive to sell Pentax if the margin isn't there. Also, no-one outside of the more hard-core photographers know that Pentax even exists. (There are entire threads dedicated to this) Pentax has compelling products that no one knows exists. The price is there to give incentive to the retailers. If they couple generous lens rebates, that lets the consumers get the added value.

[monochrome]

Why not just block the gray market?

Since the US BigBox retailers (and a certain online big volume dealer) are the gray market (suppliers - they over-order and then sell excess to overstock) - and are the same people who price product so that an Australian or European can purchase from a US retailer and save significant money after duty and shipping - isn't blocking the gray market exactly what they are doing?

Isn't that the unspoken reason for the US price increases? To punish the miscreant dealer(s) and regain control of their global distribution and pricing strategy?

[jmg257]

"Wow!, look at that increase, now is the time for me to buy!"

I haven't said that, nor would I. But if I wanted a Pentax item that the local camera shop is now selling for the same price as Amazon, I would very likely say "might as well get it here - no sense ordering online". If more retailers can compete, more retailers might be willing to start selling the whole Pentax line. Seems atleast a few already have...

[eddie1960]

Why not just block the gray market?

when the us retailers sell into other markets (like shipping to Canada and Australian and Europe) they are the Grey market and they disrupt pricing and distribution in established markets
BH Photo is not a Pentax Canada Authorized dealer, so they are Grey market to me.

[ironlionzion]

Don't worry guys, Amazon has discounted more Pentax lenses. There is still a price increase, but it isn't absurd. Example: 16-50 is now $1100 instead of $1500.

Also, ceteris paribus, price increases above normal inflation values rarely ever lead to increased profit. Pentax knows something we don't. Either they are about to come out with new, market changing products, or they are looking to kill their brand. I'm hoping it's the former.

[eddie1960]

I haven't said that, nor would I. But if I wanted a Pentax item that the local camera shop is now selling for the same price as Amazon, I would very likely say "might as well get it here - no sense ordering online". If more retailers can compete, more retailers might be willing to start selling the whole Pentax line. Seems atleast a few already have...

Exactly, and if you have questions or need assistance with your Item there is a store to walk into and get help.

[ElJamoquio]

it has to be a multi tiered strategy. I agree DA* prices went too far. I also think they will adjust. But you have to adnmit the previous prices on DA8 were ridiculously low based on what the competition sells similar lenses for (ie nikon 17-55 2.8 or the Canon 17-55 2.8) I think the 16-50 will probably settle back to 1099-1199 eventually with rebates of $100-200 sporadically to drive volume in key selling seasons - the same way Nikon does it actually)

The two lenses you mention both have stabilization. One of the chief drivers for me to buy pentax was the stabilization was in the camera. I paid more for my k5 than a d7000 retailed for.

Take the $1100 Canon, take off $200 for stabilization (remember that a non-stabilized lens can/should be optically simpler than a stabilized lens). $900 is fair for that lens. Add in a 5 year warranty and I'd say $1000 might be fair. For reference the sigma is $660 (with stabilization). The Tamron with stabilization is $650 and without stabilization (the only lens so far with a similar feature set) is $500.

So I guess in general I agree with your conclusions except for the 'ridiculously low' part. $800 was not ridiculous, the lens has had flaws in the past (let's assume they're forgotten now) and does not have the same features as the other lenses you compare it to.

[ElJamoquio]

Really? They spent $115,000,000 for a tiny mirrorless, a 10,000-Unit, $10,000 MF and some patents?

That's not as crazy as it sounds. If they're making a 20% margin on just the 645D then that's a P/E of ~6, which is a bargain.

[monochrome]

Also, ceteris paribus, price increases above normal inflation values rarely ever lead to increased profit. Pentax knows something we don't. Either they are about to come out with new, market changing products, or they are looking to kill their brand. I'm hoping it's the former. K-x, MZ-S, PZ-1, MX Tamron 17-50, DA 55-300

Or they are betting the United States is about to introduce a National Sales Tax / VAT structure.

[Blue]

Since the US BigBox retailers (and a certain online big volume dealer) are the gray market (suppliers - they over-order and then sell excess to overstock) - and are the same people who price product so that an Australian or European can purchase from a US retailer and save significant money after duty and shipping - isn't blocking the gray market exactly what they are doing?

Isn't that the unspoken reason for the US price increases? To punish the miscreant dealer(s) and regain control of their global distribution and pricing strategy?

They are blocking the whole market. Why should I spend big money on a Sigma 150 or 180mm hsm macro if they ever come available in K-mount when the Nikkor 200/4 macro (micro) is staring me in the eyes at $1659 with a 5 year warranty?

[monochrome]

That's not as crazy as it sounds. If they're making a 20% margin on just the 645D then that's a P/E of ~6, which is a bargain.

They're not selling 10,000 645D's a year. The initial announcement was a 10,000 Unit RUN.

[monochrome]

They are blocking the whole market. Why should I spend big money on a Sigma 150 or 180mm hsm macro if they ever come available in K-mount when the Nikkor 200/4 macro (micro) is staring me in the eyes at $1659 with a 5 year warranty?

I don't know. Why would anyone else in the world do it? They sold a lot more gear outside the US retailers than they did inside the US retailers.

Again - we won't know the full resolution of this for months. What if, over time, they replace all these lenses with better engineered motors, warranted 5 years, with (some) local distribution and (lower) street prices, but in these price brackets?