[Anvh]

It's not very hard at all.

They should've

1) Given a clear indication to retailers what the minimum advertised price is/was going to be (no overshoot with guesswork as to how much to discount later)
2) NOT claimed they did not raise prices
3) for the love of god, not implemented on April fools' day

(and 1 of many bonuses they could've done) Don't raise prices on stuff that was never going to be sold at Target in order to get a contract at Target

okay here we go...

1) so you know what pentax have said to the retailers?
2) depends on your point of view, it has been discussed and no need to discuss this point further.
3) yeah that was not good timing XD

You've asked the right question but to the wrong person. I agree that most consumers have already mostly forgotten and forgiven.

I personally have benefitted in the short term from UPP - my lens value has gone up. All of the lenses that had their purchase price go up were either lenses that I already own or never plan on owning (with the possible exception of the 21 and 70mm lenses... but I pretty much stopped purchasing APS-C lenses).

The only lenses I'm really missing right now are a FF 24-70 or so and a long telephoto. I didn't purchase a sigma k-mount 500mm f/4.5 this winter because of the lens roadmap. I'm waiting for the FF Pentax and the 560, but in the meantime I'm patiently perusing the used-lenses in Nikon. If Pentax has a kick ass camera at Photokina, great. But I'm starting to build up my Nikon lens collection (ok, I'm looking) right now, and that is something that wouldn't have happened before the inept implementation of UPP.

Yeah maybe, for the rest those are all personal things and while i don't see why you're missing a FF 24-70 while pentax don't make a FF is beyond me but i won't ask for explainations.

I hope they indeed have some nice releases this year, the K30 is a very good start i would say.

[ElJamoquio]

okay here we go...

1) so you know what pentax have said to the retailers?
2) depends on your point of view, it has been discussed and no need to discuss this point further.
3) yeah that was not good timing XD

1) Of course, I don't know exactly what was said to the retailers. I *DO* know;

1A) that Ned has said that 'retailers are required to stick to MSRP' was a good characterization of the situation.
1B) that on April 1st many/most lenses were raised to at or near MSRP
1C) that since that time those lenses which had their prices raised have decreased/fluctuated in street price.

so

1D) why the hell didn't Pentax just communicate a 'minimum advertised price' rather than have all this nonsense?


2) just to be clear, I'm talking about the same post for background on 1) and 2) - i assume you know the one (?) - where he says that 'Pentax did not raise prices' was a good characterization. We don't have to discuss it further, I just wanted to let you know what I was referring to.

2) continued - maybe you believe that Pentax raised prices. Maybe you don't. Maybe you believe that Ned said they didn't raise prices. Maybe you don't. But in either of those (2x2) four cases, you can still agree that it's a mistake to even allow people to think you said you didn't raise prices when something you did caused prices to go up?

Yeah maybe, for the rest those are all personal things and while i don't see why you're missing a FF 24-70 while pentax don't make a FF is beyond me but i won't ask for explainations.

I didn't say I was missing it in k-mount. Honestly I won't know what mount I 'need' it to be until September, but if I find a good deal in Nikon mount before then, I'm not going to pass it by.

[drougge]

Beside that where is the real cost saving in the narrower field of view?

If you need coverage more than about the focal length, price goes up. The m4/3 example you gave does not, the FF example you gave very much does. The comparison is therefore irrelevant.

Needing the rear element to be far from the image plane also costs extra on wide angles, but this is unrelated to registration distance. Let me repeat that: The minimum distance from the rear element to the imaging plane is unrelated to registration distance.

Look at almost any K mount lens that is not a long prime, and you willl see glass further back than the register. To help you out, I will point out that the register is at the surface with the electical contacts.

Assuming you didn't actually want a mirrorless mount, it would still be perfectly possible to start allowing glass further back in the K mount if you allow old (FF) cameras to hit it with their mirrors. So far Pentax has not done so, but there's no technical reason they couldn't. And we have seen a prototype of such a lens, which might still clear the mirror on APS-C cameras.

[mee]

Suppose <cut>
Suppose <cut>
Suppose <cut>
...emerging synergy..
...mojo..

There were a lot of suppositions in there not unlike my own post.. but yours had fancy buzzwords.

But I see where you are going and can agree overall that it will take time (as I already mentioned). Hmm but Apple didn't get their 'mojo' back. There is no 'mojo.' Apple simply defined a strategy, carefully (and smartly) bought existing technology, modified it to their needs, and branded it as their own with a GREAT marketing strategy at the right place at the right time.

And I wouldn't be so sure Richoh know where they are going with the Pentax imaging side.. I'm sure they have a plan to make money (duh) and a general method to get there.. but in business 125 million cash is small potatoes to get a slice of the camera/imaging market... so it probably wasn't that scary of a deal to take on. The technology and any patents are probably worth enough to a 3rd party that they weren't horribly concerned.

Ricoh makes office equipment, industrial equipment (such as thermal paper), and, oh, digital cameras. One of these is not like the other. Hoya didn't want them.. They just saw it as a way to generate some cash to offset their purchase of the medical equipment side that they did want. If there was a ton of easy money in Pentax, then Hoya would have kept them longer.

I'm sure Ricoh saw an opportunity to generate a positive net income stream in Pentax, however that doesn't mean the company understands designing, marketing, and generally selling cameras (that is, getting to that positive stream and continuing the cash flow). And, at the end of the day, it is the Ricoh board that makes the decisions not the Pentax engineers... right? There is nothing to say that Ricoh management is listening to the Pentax house and they definitely don't have to since they own them (literally).

I find the sudden, forced control of pricing @ MSRP a misstep for Ricoh.. Who do they think they are? Nikon?

[mee]

Hold your horses. Who said anything about Pentax releasing 7 DSLRs, or going neck and neck with the likes of Nikon in few months? That's strawman. And strawmen are usually built to be ridiculously wrong, because the "opponent's" point of view isn't
monochrome is right, Pentax needs more than 2 bodies, and more lenses for their growth plans - and we'll see them.
Only relying on low prices won't work - been there, done that. The result: there was no market share gains, and Pentax is still fighting with the image of a cheap brand, we can see this when people are suggesting the K-30 should match the price of some lowly junk from the competition

That was in response to monochrome's chicken or egg first argument:

Nikon has a large market share because they have 7 bodies below $1200. Price/features = VALUE, which is more than competitive. Compact, durable, WR, great IQ, different cameras.

Ricoh plans to own and build Pentax for more than just one Fiscal Year

I never claimed Pentax didn't need less than 2 bodies or they need to go toe to toe with Nikon in a few months - please show me where I said that, Kunzite. You are putting words into my 'mouth.'

You might have missed it, but I said I see the number being less than or equal to 4 bodies for pentax and more might be a burden to such a small company. But I also mentioned not enough room for a slightly modified K5 to which I still agree. There doesn't seem enough difference to warrant it's place in the lineup - it is too similar to the K30 and Pentax currently needs a distinct lineup. The K5 update better have something dramatic going for it because there is already a 16MP, pentaprism, WR, low noise dslr in their lineup and I suspect it has better AF both for photos and definitely for video.

I also never claimed relying on low prices was a good plan.. as in THE sole plan. I said that one of the best ways... and on the lower/entry level end of the market.

[rparmar]

Yaa thats the conclusion you would draw from it but not everyone is slow on imbibing what other person is writing.

He has not said anything of that sorts. What he has said is those who work in Ricoh do know their stuff, they are working in that company because they go through a process of hiring which makes sure to hire people who at least have basic understanding of things.

Your logic here is that person A should be trusted because they are sure person B can be trusted. And that those who criticise person A are necessarily wrong. All of this without a shred of evidence or supporting argumentation.

Maybe you should actually read up on logical fallacies to see where you are making your mistake. I realise that's a lot harder than simply dismissing me out of hand, but heck, you just might learn something.

[Blue]

Given the K-01 is an Aps-c K-mount body, I don't see more than 3 dSLR bodies in the Pentax line up at any given time as sustainable in the next couple of years. A 4th dSLR should be a ff. I am talking K-mount here and not MF.

[Medium FormatPro]

Remember, Ricoh's confirmed plan is to regain 10% market share and they think there is room for 4 Pentax dSLR's

On the first portion of the statement first... Did Ricoh really recently state that, (they) confirmed plan is to regain ten percent market share?? If so, about how recently - ballpark - and was it verbally or in writting??

[ENicolas]

I would think Pentax has to generate some revenue for Ricoh to justify its existence and the price they paid for it. The weather-sealed aspect of the K-30 seems to be a nod to those lower-end waterproof "sports cameras" they sell, and that are apparently fairly popular. These days and for the foreseeable future the hierarchy seems to be:

= Low-end pocket cameras that work like iPhones but take better pictures
= Mirrorless compacts that overlap the above pocket cameras but offer a more advanced feature set
= Mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras that will eventually kill-off the mirrorless compacts above
= DSLRs that range in price from the high-end of the mirrorless compacts through pro-level

To generate money Pentax will probably concentrate on the low-to-mid-level consumer market for a while. That will justify buying the company as a good move on Ricoh's part.

And just like Canon with its "Rebel" series and Nikon with its DXXXX series, Pentax needs at least two solid low-end consumer DSLRs.

But when it comes to a FF offering they are in kind of a bind: how many units of a new, expensive FF will they sell to new customers, versus selling to K-5 owners who want to upgrade? The upgrade market must be very significant to them with any initial FF offering that has no track record. So releasing a K-5 replacement in the same year as a FF camera would be harming that upgrade market for the FF.

I think if we see a K-5 replacement this year we won't see a FF model until next year at the earliest. Too much of Ricoh's market is based on the Pentax loyalists in the DSLR range to spread things that thin.

This is why the thought of a mirrorless FF model makes a lot of sense for Pentax. Especially one that will work with the existing FF lens line as well as new lenses. It's almost unexplored territory, and being an innovator in that market might be Pentax's opportunity to shine in the Canikon world.

[Aristophanes]

This is why the thought of a mirrorless FF model makes a lot of sense for Pentax. Especially one that will work with the existing FF lens line as well as new lenses. It's almost unexplored territory, and being an innovator in that market might be Pentax's opportunity to shine in the Canikon world.

With the enormous caveat that SLR's are designed, including their lenses, for a high-quality OVF.

The OVF is everything, and until an EVF surpasses one in low, natural light, then mirrorless FF is a fantasy. The backlog for the D800 says so.

The only reason to do a FF mirrorless is to match Leica using an AF system.

It may be"unexplored territory" (except for the Leica M9) but THERE BE DRAGONS!

[Kunzite]

About my consistency i said that with a shorter register and wider diamater mount a "real" APS-C "FF equivalent" could be made and that the lenses can become cheaper.
[...]
Pentax now is in a position to make a real change with APS-C with a mount designed for APS-C, this will make the system more future proof and make it better marketable for the professional market.
Anyway go ahead and put up some prices then, compare APS-C lenses with the same 4/3 lenses then so lenses with the same focal length and aperture.

Before you say that the "real" APS-C "FF equivalent" would be more expensive then the FF lens they mimic, i can only say that you would most likely be correct but look at the price for high end APS-C body and a low end FF and then look how many times you've bought a new DSLR in 10 years time and how many times you've replaced a lens in that time.
Even if an APS-C FF equivalent lens will be $1000 more expensive you will already have that money back when you replace your first camera.

So you're advocating that Pentax should give up on DSLRs and go full-mirrorless? Because that's the way they could reduce the registration distance. About your consistency: you were talking about 4/3 at times, and that's a DSLR mount.

I fail to see how it would make them "better marketable for the professional market", and how starting over from scratch (you're ignoring the huge effort needed, and made no effort to assess the need for APS-C ultra-fast lenses) and competing with the electronic giants on the electronic gadget market would be any better. I also can't understand how asking the same for something worse (smaller sensor, doh!) is such a good business plan.
By the way, I mentioned this before: Olympus was in a position to make a real change to 4/3 with a mount designed for 4/3, this made the system more future proof and better marketable for the professional market... wait, 4/3 is dead. End of story.

That was in response to monochrome's chicken or egg first argument:

I never claimed Pentax didn't need less than 2 bodies or they need to go toe to toe with Nikon in a few months - please show me where I said that, Kunzite. You are putting words into my 'mouth.'
[...]
The K5 update better have something dramatic going for it because there is already a 16MP, pentaprism, WR, low noise dslr in their lineup and I suspect it has better AF both for photos and definitely for video.

Well, you said :

You don't release 7 dslr bodies into the wild and wait for the money to roll in. You have the cart before the horse -- Nikon can only do what they do because they already have the large market share... they can afford the extra weight of designing/supporting extra products and they have strong channels with retailers to push their products.

which is not something that monochrome was suggesting. First, the number is too high indeed - but a smaller one is manageable, as we'll see. Next, Pentax has a plan; they don't simply "release bodies into the wild".
Hope that clarifies my view.

The K-5 update will be good, have faith and patience

This is why the thought of a mirrorless FF model makes a lot of sense for Pentax. Especially one that will work with the existing FF lens line as well as new lenses. It's almost unexplored territory, and being an innovator in that market might be Pentax's opportunity to shine in the Canikon world.

It does, about as much as square wheels on a car. It's unexplored territory, and innovative as well

[ENicolas]

With the enormous caveat that SLR's are designed, including their lenses, for a high-quality OVF.

The OVF is everything, and until an EVF surpasses one in low, natural light, then mirrorless FF is a fantasy. The backlog for the D800 says so.

The only reason to do a FF mirrorless is to match Leica using an AF system.

It may be"unexplored territory" (except for the Leica M9) but THERE BE DRAGONS!

Yes - but since they seem to get their sensors from Sony maybe they can get their OLED EVF, as well.

[Kunzite]

Why not rebadging Sony cameras, then?
Sony's OLED EVF, is, IMHO, nowhere near a good "FF" OVF.

[Class A]

They should've

1) Given a clear indication to retailers what the minimum advertised price is/was going to be (no overshoot with guesswork as to how much to discount later)
2) NOT claimed they did not raise prices
3) for the love of god, not implemented on April fools' day

(and 1 of many bonuses they could've done) Don't raise prices on stuff that was never going to be sold at Target in order to get a contract at Target

I agree, in particular with 2).

Claiming that prices have not been raised is a childish attempt to have your cake and eat it too, i.e., trying to appear to be "playing nice" while one is "playing nasty". "We didn't raise prices, we just made it more expensive for you to buy lenses", yeah, makes sense. I general, Ned Bunnell asks quite a bit of his customers when it comes to buying stories.

Another move I would have expected with a proper change of pricing policy is to lower the insanely high MSRP on some lenses (like the $1600 for the DA* 50-135/2.8 which implies >$750 profit for a retailer which translates to a ridiculous margin of 88%) before making the MSRP compulsory.

The insanely high MSRP only made sense with a significant online discount factored in.

BTW, I can only imagine that the lenses which are currently priced out of the range of a rational buyer are destined to be phased out. I cannot believe that Pentax USA believe they can get away with these prices, and build up a brick & mortar presence with such low value for money products. The new high margins may be nice for dealers, but they are only of use if one actually sells something. A DA* 50-135/2.8 @ $1600 will be a slow mover...

BTW, according to Ned Bunnell, the unilateral pricing policy was not enforced by Ricoh. Apparently, it is the brainchild of Pentax USA.

But I'm starting to build up my Nikon lens collection (ok, I'm looking) right now, and that is something that wouldn't have happened before the inept implementation of UPP.

I'm agreeing with a lot that you have written but why hold a grunge against Pentax because of an inept UPP implementation only? If you were unhappy with the prices, I could understand, but they would have been unattractive with a better implementation of UPP as well (unless it involved lowering MSRP).

[mecrox]

snip]
BTW, I can only imagine that the lenses which are currently priced out of the range of a rational buyer are destined to be phased out. I cannot believe that Pentax USA believe they can get away with these prices, and build up a brick & mortar presence with such low value for money products. The new high margins may be nice for dealers, but they are only of use if one actually sells something. A DA* 50-135/2.8 @ $1600 will be a slow mover...
[snip]

Well, where I live in the UK prices increased by up to 30% at the same time, turning fully priced lenses into fully overpriced ones. The only real shot Pentax have in their locker is to make themselves kings of APS-C. They already have solid ground for this in the form of the K-5, the upcoming K-30 and a lens selection which appears tuned for APS-C. Nothing from anyone else comes close to the DA and DA* primes series on APS-C, and no one has yet bettered the sensor performance in the K5, but if you price the stuff off the planet then I really doubt folks will play. The competition will seem "good enough" which, if you are not buying kit for professional purposes, is an argument which tends to trump all others, imho.

Pentax's ventures into other markets have fallen flat so far (with the exception of the purely high-end pro 645D), so why do folks on here think that a magic wand will appear and ding! a perfect FF camera will suddenly emerge. Past performance doesn't indicate that at all. The market size and financial basis for an FF looks like a horror story from all I have read, not least because Pentax is completely dependent on left-overs in the FF sensor market. Getting out a killer low-end APS-C to compete against the new Nikon D3200 is a more important thing for Pentax to do than compete in the Fantasy Full Frame stakes, I would guess from my viewpoint as a consumer. It's that camera I would see in the retail stores here - hardly any outside the pro trade carry FF other than on a requested order-in basis. I mean, how many Pentax FF cameras do you expect to see in your Target stores in America?

Pentax has first to get APS-C absolutely locked down and running brilliantly, I think. All else is secondary. Raising prices in the way they have before producing some "I want" goodies and pumping up the marketing is starting your game with an own goal. I'm looking at Europe here too, not just the USA.