[LamyTax]

And while it may be unrelated to the Pentax/Ricoh business, it's not unrelated to me. You practically advocate being "average", because then you will fit in to the target consumers of camera brands. But I've never been good at being average. So I think I choose being me, and not caring so much about what others say I should be concerned about.

I don't think you got what I was saying.

The mass-market stuff pays for the research and development of fancy tools that are way above "average". Pentax could either go the Leica-strategy and become very, very expensive and aim at a very small but high-level niche, or do what they're currently doing. Which I prefer.

[Jon Petersen]

Hi!

New member, old man.

Have been a strictly amateur photographer since I, aged 20, dropped any dreams of becoming a pro.

After having K1000 and KX film cameras with a small selection of nice glass - 28, 50, 100 and a Tamron 350 mirror tele - when I wanted a DSLR the choice was obvious. Pentax it had to be, and the *ist dl seemed nice at the price. As I mainly see my pics on screen, the resolution hasn´t really been a problem, and being used to the VERY manual K1000, I have had no problem with using the *ist with the manual lenses. I still got a very nice spot exposure meter, and the possibility to check the sharpness on screen after exposure.

Maybe due to my many years of working with film, I haven´t taken 10.000 exposures yet. I don´t do sports photography, so just the thought of looking through hundreds and hundreds of pictures from say a hike, a bike ride, a party, a concert or whatever I use the camera for makes me yawn. I take the pictures I have a feeling will come good, otherwise I remove my finger from the button.

I also use the camera as a tool when dismantling things like a carburettor - to help me remember what goes where....
This just to remind some people where some of us come from.

As most of my lenses are and will remain old glass primes - I am now looking for a 35 f/2 to use as standard - the lack of red idiot lights in the viewfinder is not a problem, but rather nice. If the lighting is weak, I sometimes use the green focus indicator, usually on a spot setting - and have few problems in recomposing. Experience sees to that.


So, the possibility of buying a cheap new camera with more pixels is actually quite appealing, the video facility will be seen as a seldomly used, but quite funny bonus. I will just have to get rid of that 18-55.....

Now, I realize that I am a VERY unusual customer - not worth putting a camera together for. I have things for many years, don ´t trash them - and rarely buys new.

In fact - that completely manual DSLR with modern exposure metering, a nice big screen on the backside for picture control and possibly FF for that larger screen in the viewfinder.


But until then this will fit my bill. I don´t need the WR-capabilities of the K50 much, as my lenses don´t like water anyway.

What I would like is a mini jack to plug better mics into the videocorder.....


About this discussion:

I think the points made about the K500 being made mostly to sell more K50s is probably very, very true. I also agree to the idea of only having centre-autofocus at the same time - to differentiate even more. These two points will hardly be neither the downfall of Pentax nor the best ever marketing plot.

Regards

Jon

PS.: A lot of the heated discussion and thinly disguised aggression I am pretty used to from forums on other topics - but don ´t expect anything like that comin from me....

[RonHendriks1966]

Maybe the K-500 is the camera that Pentax can put on the shelfs in Europe in Media Markt with some awesome pricing:



Think that in the Netherlands Media Markt has a marketshare of almost 25 % in the consumersection. They currently sell no Pentax (except a few stores near the German border).

[gazonk]

Maybe the K-500 is the camera that Pentax can put on the shelfs in Europe in Media Markt with some awesome pricing:

We have family in Speyer, Germany, so I visit the Media Markt there quite often (usually because my teenage son wants to go shopping computer games). As long as the K-x was marketed, they had Pentax on display, they even showed it in several colors, but now for a year or two they've had no Pentax equipment at all. I think it would be very good for general brand awareness if there again were Pentaxes on display in Media Markt stores. A great deal on K-500 and display of some K-50s in eye catching colors would be good.

[Lars]

When Mediamarkt opened up in Sweden they did carry same Pentax cameras, at least K5, Q, and also K-0 I think. This was maybe around one year or two ago-

(I was there to be able to hold the k5, but found it too small/not comfortable for me. Decided to wait for something more like my K10, and this seems to be along wait)

Today on their website I only can find K30, and nothing else!

/Lars

[monochrome]

Imagine Pentax goes bankrupt because of not making enough money

Straw Man argument. That just isn't going to happen. It just isn't. Not. Going. To. Happen.

A company budgets R&D investment for product development from its Capital accounts, not from its Cash Flow accounts. Cash Flow accounts yield dividends to the upstream owner and have little to do directly with generating funds for new products. (Hoya was not interested in Pentax because they demand 20% ROIC and the best camera company only yields 8-10%).


The real point of entry level camera bodies is to develop the installed base of branded, distinct camera bodies - you could even say an installed base of lens mounts like the K-mount, whcih is the brand distinction. Once a company has a large enough installed base of camera bodies all kinds of good things happen which have synchronicity benefits (synergy, with some pixie dust included):

• Customers buy a second lens
• Third party manufacturers release in your mount
  • Customers buy their lenses
• Customers buy accessories - flash, case, whatever - (very profitable)
• Because they have the installed accessories, customers buy another camera when technology improves enough
• Base cash flow increases enough to permit general brand marketing (image advertising).
  • Which leads to brand receptivity, which makes it easier to increase the installed base
• Customers buy a camera kit as a gift for a family member (more than one body per household)
  • which deepens the installed base
• Customers buy a camera kit as a gift for a different household
  • which broadens the installed base
• Lower-information customers shop in local-market stores rather than online
  • and tend to permit upselling and accessory adds-on
• Etc., Etc.

The same marketing logic is behind "The Many Colors of Pentax" - trying to attract the impulse buyer, the gift buyer, the early adopter, the buyer who views a black dSLR as an intimidationg, professional device.

Pentax needs to keep doing these things, over and over and over, without any more interruptions by financial engineers and corporate chieftains.

We'll be fine. Let the team play out the entire season.

[LamyTax]

Straw Man argument. That just isn't going to happen. It just isn't. Not. Going. To. Happen.

It's neither a strawman argument nor impossible.
Just very unlikely. And if you've read the rest of my post you just took out of context, you'd understand why I was making that argument.

[monochrome]

It's neither a strawman argument nor impossible.
Just very unlikely. And if you've read the rest of my post you just took out of context, you'd understand why I was making that argument.

I read the entire post. I get your point, where you want to go with your argument. But you used a straw man to make your point. What yuo propose will never, ever happen.

First, a company simply cannot go bankrupt by not making enough money. It may become insolvent by losing money, catastrophically or consistently over time, or by accumulating more liabilities than it has assets (technical insolvency). Further, Ricoh Imaging would need to invade all the assets and borrowing capacity of Ricoh Corp. before Ricoh Imaging ("Pentax") and its parent would be unable to meet Pentax's obligations.

It is equally unlikely (near impossible) Pentax would exhaust Ricoh's patience with ongoing lossmaking and sell or simply close Pentax than that Pentax would ever go bankrupt by not making enough money. Not making enough money is why Hoya sold Pentax to Ricoh. Not making enough money is far dfferent from losing money.

It is far more likely digicams would require so much investment to become the "third camera company" that Ricoh would just change direction altogether (which is in fact the general opinion of the investment advice community).

[IchabodCrane]

I read the entire post. I get your point, where you want to go with your argument. But you used a straw man to make your point. What yuo propose will never, ever happen.

First, a company simply cannot go bankrupt by not making enough money. It may become insolvent by losing money, catastrophically or consistently over time, or by accumulating more liabilities than it has assets (technical insolvency). Further, Ricoh Imaging would need to invade all the assets and borrowing capacity of Ricoh Corp. before Ricoh Imaging ("Pentax") and its parent would be unable to meet Pentax's obligations.

It is equally unlikely (near impossible) Pentax would exhaust Ricoh's patience with ongoing lossmaking and sell or simply close Pentax than that Pentax would ever go bankrupt by not making enough money. Not making enough money is why Hoya sold Pentax to Ricoh. Not making enough money is far dfferent from losing money.

It is far more likely digicams would require so much investment to become the "third camera company" that Ricoh would just change direction altogether (which is in fact the general opinion of the investment advice community).

I think you're arguing over the specific use of words in LamyTax's post but we all understand what he meant.

Sure, it's possible Pentax could go away just like it was possible Minolta and Contax cameras went away or Pioneer televisions went away. Their products were quite good, too. That doesn't mean it's likely, either.

I agree with LamyTax's assertion that Pentax users should be interested in the relative success of all of Pentax's camera lines, even if we only consider purchasing from one end of that product line. A healthy company will have more resources and justification for the use of those resources to insure their technology remains competitive. Isn't that what we want?

[monochrome]

Words matter. Precision matters.

As I said, I got the point.

But unless Pentax is Olympus it isn't going bankrupt.

[IchabodCrane]

Words matter. Precision matters.

As I said, I got the point.

But unless Pentax is Olympus it isn't going bankrupt.

Konica-Minolta, Carl Zeiss, and Pioneer Electronics weren't liquidated, either, but you can no longer buy Minolta or Contax cameras nor Pioneer plasma televisions. Bankruptcy is just one scenario under which Pentax cameras may become extinct which is certainly not what anyone here wants to see happen.

BTW, Panasonic bought Pioneer's patent portfolio for plasma displays a few years ago and I discovered by accident that some of that technology is just now appearing in Panny's new and highest line of plasmas (this new Z series). Let's just say the model is saw was tres cher.