[jogiba]

As far as I've heard, cameras are still a growth market.

That is true and Samsung sells more worldwide than any other company.

[thibs]

I agree. I think when one changes model names/numbers too much, a mfr is just buying themselves a whole lot more marketing to sell the product. I can remember when Volkswagon introduced the bug. Year after year, they had minor upgrades to it but it was always called the bug. It had long term characteristics, e.g. reliability, easy to repair, fuel economy that never changed. It had legions of supporters, including parts suppliers. It was air cooled so that one never had to change the radiator antifreeze, because there was no radiator, at least in the early models. Meanwhile, american car mfr were changing their models every year and the bug was cleaning their clock in units sold.

The basic Pentax flagship model starting with the K7, then the K5 and now the K5ii and K5iis all use the same body and battery. Thats great and the kind of thing i'm talking about, except for the somewhat flakey model names :-). Some folks in this forum have complained about the lack of improvements in the K5ii series, but i don't think so. Pentax fixed what they needed to in the AF regarding low light, and then upgraded resolution in the 5iis by playing with the AA filter. As a potential buyer, I then know what to expect. Cheers to Pentax for that.

Keep it simple and the buying public is more likely to remember the model name when they see it in advertising and from previous generations of that camera. Canon is doing that with the 5D. Also it saves cost in manufacturing and eliminating bugs with the basic body hardware.

Yep, 7D even more, it's not even upgraded once and it came little after the K7 or so.

[thibs]

That is true and Samsung sells more worldwide than any other company.

And for what it's worth number of units sold and marketshare are completely overrated values by many people.
Though it would be nice to have Pentax boast a 2 figures marketshare

[audiobomber]

That is true and Samsung sells more worldwide than any other company.

More than Canon and Nikon? That's surprising. Would that be most sales $$$, or most units sold?

[Uluru]

More than Canon and Nikon? That's surprising. ...

You will read even more surprising, in fact, totally unbelievable statements and "facts" around PF.

[Uluru]

1. Smartphones are not cheap.
2. Cameras in phones are.

No, smartphones are cheap, because almost everyone gets them on monthly plans, for $20 onwards.
Can you get a real camera like that, on 24 months plan for, say, $40 a month?

To people's minds it ends up being much cheaper, and that is why smartphones overtake cameras — not because the real cameras suck and smartphone cameras are great, but because they can get a smartphone on a contract with low monthly repayments.

People would never buy a real camera like that, because camera is not seen as a necessity.

And how people buy cameras? They first complain about prices because they must buy them outright — they can't get them on low monthly plans. Then they pull out a credit card, and then pay extra interest on the credit card purchase. In the end, camera costs them even more, and is rapidly losing value if they are not using it enough.

It is the basic go to market approach which makes smartphone sales booming everywhere. If we had to buy smartphones outright, for cash, they wouldn't be as popular as they are and camera manufacturers would not need to worry.

[Quicksand]

No, smartphones are cheap, because almost everyone gets them on monthly plans, for $20 onwards.
Can you get a real camera like that, on 24 months plan for, say, $40 a month?

To people's minds it ends up being much cheaper, and that is why smartphones overtake cameras — not because the real cameras suck and smartphone cameras are great, but because they can get a smartphone on a contract with low monthly repayments.

People would never buy a real camera like that, because camera is not seen as a necessity.

As an amateur, would I buy a high-end camera body on a smartphone-like equipment-subsidizing monthly service plan? Maybe I would! A smartphone is hardly a necessity either.

Smartphones have a few notable attributes in common with higher-end cameras. They're primarily a luxury item, and it's pretty expensive to "buy in" to one, at least in unsubsidized form. People tend to trade up every couple of years.

I think I'd be willing to commit to two years at as much as $80 per month for a FF camera with built-in 4G data capability, if it came with a service that allowed some reasonably generous amount of automatic photo transfer/upload at no additional charge.

And then after two years I'd own it outright, and either continue paying $80 to upgrade to a new camera (and keep the old one as a backup), or perhaps downgrade the service plan to something that doesn't subsidize the equipment and just keep the old one.

I like this.

[Uluru]

As an amateur, would I buy a high-end camera body on a smartphone-like equipment-subsidizing monthly service plan? Maybe I would! A smartphone is hardly a necessity either.

Smartphones have a few notable attributes in common with higher-end cameras. They're primarily a luxury item, and it's pretty expensive to "buy in" to one, at least in unsubsidized form. People tend to trade up every couple of years.

I think I'd be willing to commit to two years at as much as $80 per month for a FF camera with built-in 4G data capability, if it came with a service that allowed some reasonably generous amount of automatic photo transfer/upload at no additional charge.

And then after two years I'd own it outright, and either continue paying $80 to upgrade to a new camera (and keep the old one as a backup), or perhaps downgrade the service plan to something that doesn't subsidize the equipment and just keep the old one.

I like this.

Apple sells their equipment with certain no-interest and low-interest plans. Currently in Australia, they offer a 6-months zero-interest plan if you buy through GE finance.

I'd really like Pentax comes with something similar, or at least that it sells through B&M outlets that support such a finance.

Other option would be if a national Pentax subsidiary sells directly to public like that; through their local Pentax online store and on monthly plans. Buying of DSLRs and lenses especially would be much easier.

In addition, 'Try Before You Buy Programme' would open a brand to thousands of new users.

[Pål Jensen]

To people's minds it ends up being much cheaper, and that is why smartphones overtake cameras — not because the real cameras suck and smartphone cameras are great, but because they can get a smartphone on a contract with low monthly repayments.
.

Phones are used for causual shooting. Hence, cameras that are used primarily for causual shooting (P&S) suffers the most saleswise. Other cameras are more dedicated instruments for photography and doesn't suffer as much saleswise from camera phones. In fact, the widespread use of camera phones make a significant number of people more interested in photography helping sales of "real" cameras...

[Uluru]

Phones are used for causual shooting. Hence, cameras that are used primarily for causual shooting (P&S) suffers the most saleswise. Other cameras are more dedicated instruments for photography and doesn't suffer as much saleswise from camera phones. In fact, the widespread use of camera phones make a significant number of people more interested in photography helping sales of "real" cameras...

Yes, there is that side-effect too. However, buying extra camera is also extra cost, and it is outright payment, so people will be smarter about it.

Therefore cameras must start from a no-nonsense approach, that holds much quality, good price, and must hold lots of emotional value too: must feel great, look great, and with top-notch optics. And as an absolute minimum, they must support Eye-Fi, maybe even advertised used with an iPad or something. I know Ricoh did that when they were introducing the new GR in Tokyo, in April — showed syncing, editing and displaying images of a large sensor camera on a large screen iPad.

[IchabodCrane]

Camera phones are so popular because they are essentially free and take up zero space. People want a phone with them all the time and the camera doesn't seem to add any cost to the phone (that people perceive). Since you have your phone anyway, the camera comes along with no weight or size penalty. No wonder people like them.

[audiobomber]

Therefore cameras must start from a no-nonsense approach, that holds much quality, good price, and must hold lots of emotional value too: must feel great, look great, and with top-notch optics.

Every time I look at or touch my Q, it impresses me. I love the metal body, the look and feel of quality construction, photographically-centered controls and amazing versatility. If I had to use a mobile phone instead of a camera, I'd quit photography.

[monochrome]

I think possibly Samsung sells a ton of compacts, so by some measure they're #1 - I think I terms of a full line of cameras. Who is #1 measuring what we care about?

[jonlg]

The key to developing the brand in my view will be developing cameras with superb appeal in the marketplace. There's a real gap in my view for a retro style (just like Fuji X100S) rangefinder with EVF, APSC sensor and crucially interchangeable lenses (which the Fuji doesn't offer). The Sony RX1 offers some of that but completely lacks the retro appeal of the Fuji. If Pentax could be first to market something like that I really think they could make waves in the industry. They already make cameras that simply feel better in the hand than anyone else (Pentax K5) - now it's time to make cameras that look better too. That's the way to build market share and I don't see any really compelling offering from Pentax outside their DSLR's. The mass market is with Compact's but they have to offer image quality and handling significantly better than a camera phone.

Looks at this it's gorgeous - especially in the retro brown leather case: 30 Photos of Ireland captured with the X100s

Jon

[Fogel70]

The key to developing the brand in my view will be developing cameras with superb appeal in the marketplace. There's a real gap in my view for a retro style (just like Fuji X100S) rangefinder with EVF, APSC sensor and crucially interchangeable lenses (which the Fuji doesn't offer). The Sony RX1 offers some of that but completely lacks the retro appeal of the Fuji. If Pentax could be first to market something like that I really think they could make waves in the industry.

Fuji already got X-E1 and X-Pro1, and IMO Sony RX1 is also very much "retro" in its styling.

IMO it is better for Pentax to concentrate on refining its excellent modern ergonomics, and I think that works much better on a digital camera than retro styling. And as manufacturers as Olympus and Samsung also use quite a bit retro in their styling, Pentax can offer something more unique if they keep on designing cameras like they already do.