[bossa]

So Canon is "winding down" too?

My comparison was to Nikon and YOU changed the discussion as if I were talking about Canon. Canon was not part of my argument. I don't know why you keep bringing it up.

[donfenix]

Here's my little analysis of the Pentax insanity that has afflicted us in the space of one year.

[bossa]

I stopped at page 3 when I realized this thread is 15 pages long so if this has been brought up already, I apologize.

Quite possibly Pentax has received many complaints from non-USA retailers about losing too many sales to USA retailers willing to ship internationally. Maybe Pentax is changing USA prices to discourage this and shore up their retailer network around the world.

I would think that this is true.

I can't buy a 'genuine' Nikon camera or lens from B&H because Nikon will not allow them to sell to Australians, but they will sell a Parallel Imported unit but without the genuine warranty.

As a result of this Nikon Australia rips us off e.g:
Retail for D7100 here is $1695 instead of $1299 (or whatever you guys pay).. our $ is also worth US1.032 at the moment. We add on 10% GST as well so a D7100 should really only be $1430 or thereabouts.
We only get 1 year warranty (2 on some items if you register at the Nikon Australia web page).
A Nikon 70-200 here costs about $800 more than in the USA as well...

Buying Pentax from B&M here has always had the following crap prices.. always!
12-24 f4 = $1399.95
16-50 F2.8 = $1499.95
Pentax Digital Camera Lenses - Ted's Cameras

Buying from the new Pentax Australia Online Store is a different matter though and I have no idea how they can justify the difference in prices
16-50 = $999

[Belnan]

I think a lot of the lens price are quite fair actually, at least for the higher end lenses. Why should the 16-50 da* or 12-24 be less than the Nikon equivalents. not to mention the da* are weather sealed. The FA Limited's however seem a bit overpriced but I suspect if pentax had a full frame camera we might shell out the extra cash for them.

I get the feeling Pentaxians are quite frugal... as am I.

[lightbulb]

All things aside nobody likes price hike. Pentax championed value. This is changing. Glad i bought all the lenses I need.

[Aristophanes]

dofenix, excellent research.

The DA 40 Ltd is plain stoopid, but it may be on its way out as the XS version takes its place.

I've long argued that if FF is coming, APS-C lens prices have to drop, drop, drop. So ramp them up now to stave off the decline as long as possible.

[farhagh]

Why should the 16-50 da* or 12-24 be less than the Nikon equivalents.

It SHOULD NOT! The point is, as Pentax is not considered a premium brand, this kind of pricing will not help gaining more share in the market.
Now, if they want to move to a premium name, that's fine. If they can make the people believe they are something close to Leica, they may be able to charge them twice the current prices too. It's their problem how to do that, but a current typical Pentax user (or potential user) will be encouraged to switch to something else. If I am supposed to put all 3rd party lenses on my Pentax body, why not doing the same thing with a Canikon, which I will have more 3rd party options for?
I'm not telling all these about myself; I have more than enough lenses to master for a long while. It's a general case.

[ElJamoquio]

I think a lot of the lens price are quite fair actually, at least for the higher end lenses. Why should the 16-50 da* or 12-24 be less than the Nikon equivalents. not to mention the da* are weather sealed. The FA Limited's however seem a bit overpriced but I suspect if pentax had a full frame camera we might shell out the extra cash for them.

I get the feeling Pentaxians are quite frugal... as am I.

The Nikon equivalent of the 12-24 is the Tokina 12-24, which is less than half as much - you save ~$500.

The 16-50 has a rep for failure. Perhaps it's fixed now and it's worth as much as the Nikon now.

The FA Limiteds have the same light transmission as the F/1.8's of Nikons that cost ~$400-500 less. Build quality is lower and weight is higher but you get WR and A/F. Tradeoff?

[Allison]

Wow, this was a long thread to get through. At least it was interesting.

I am certain that PRIC USA must have their reasons for a price increase, but they are missing the point that the reason for the price increase has to be obvious to your customer. It was stated before, but it would have served them better if they had increased the prices on upgrades of these lenses. Add a new coating, add WR to lenses that didn't have WR, etc. just add something that conveys an increased value to the consumer and justifies to the consumer a reason to pay so much more.

I feel like Pentax saw the recent restructuring of JCPenney's pricing and decided that was a model to emulate. They just switched back to inflating the prices so that they can have a sale and coupons to drive more sales. The problem is that the dslr industry doesn't run sales or rebates or coupons every week. We all know that people will now wait to buy for a rebate and even when there is a rebate, I am not sure I would choose to buy some of these lenses at those prices.

Perhaps, as it was mentioned, Pentax is going to move to position itself as a luxury brand. But then you must offer products that while substantially more expensive than the mainstream, are of noticeably higher quality, features, and benefits. Just changing your pricing does not make a company a luxury brand. Pentax needs to be prepared that they could lose a chunk of their current (albeit small) consumer base in the US from this second increase. They keep angering a base customer that could have been easily satisfied with some better PR and communication.

[yusuf]

Is Pentax on suicide mission.

[bossa]

What market share does Leica have?

[bossa]

Personally, I'd like to see Pentax release a B&W camera with no bayer filter.. it could be 16MP (yes that same one we know and love) and I reckon they'd march out the door especially if they made it look like 'classic' rangefinder or a real MX. I'd buy that in a flash. (or even with one)

[TOUGEFC]

The Nikon equivalent of the 12-24 is the Tokina 12-24, which is less than half as much - you save ~$500.

Actually Nikon have a 10-24mm of their own $780, (which is DX much like the DA Pentax)
and also have a 12-24mm(DX again) of their own which is $990

[ElJamoquio]

Actually Nikon have a 10-24mm of their own $780, (which is DX much like the DA Pentax)
and also have a 12-24mm(DX again) of their own which is $990

...and Nikon has Pentax's version of the 12-24, which is $399. They also have Pentax's version of the 35mm Limited, which is $319.

I dunno, Nikon's zooms might be overpriced, too, but they have a more realistic claim to 'our lenses are better than third-party lenses' than Pentax does.

[bossa]

Just being a smartass here but don't forget that the AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED was designed by an ex Pentax designer.