[korc]

Samsung mentions GX-20 dSLR successor - Digital Cameras - Crave - CNET Asia

Does this mean the new K1d (K2d?) will be coming also? And so soon?

[k100d]

and 6 new optics as well

[falconeye]

Well, elsewhere in the forum you can read that two new models are expected from Pentax later this year, to be presented at photokina:

- K2000D (below K200D, very likely)
- K2D (above K20D, unsure, could be later than photokina)

The rumor seems to confirm that also K2D will emerge at photokina then.

It is believed that K2D will share the K20D sensor but be higher on fps.

The "successor" to K20D (aka K30D) is not supposed to be revealed this year, though.

[m8o]

Photokina 2008 is @ the end of September? ... and here I was thinking I should hold off buying that next camera I thought I might get this weekend...

I bet for a GX20ds with improved autofocus.

[clawhammer]

I would bet that the six lenses are just more rebadged DA's- pentax just released the 200, 300, 35 macro, 55-300, and 18-55II. That's five lenses there, and there are several more set to launch sometime in the summer, so I doubt we'll see any original designs (though I wouldn't mind being proven wrong).

Also, it could be possible that samsung makes a gx-20 "upgrade" (like the XTi was to the XT) giving it perhaps better live view, a better screen, and a couple other tweaks but not making it a pro-level camera. The way I see it, if Pentax, a long established name in the photographic community, doesn't really feel it has the opportunity to get into the Pro-level market (D3/1D) (see John Carlson's latest interview), then how can a new commer such as Samsung hope to gain a foothold?

[24X36NOW]

I would bet that the six lenses are just more rebadged DA's- pentax just released the 200, 300, 35 macro, 55-300, and 18-55II. That's five lenses there, and there are several more set to launch sometime in the summer, so I doubt we'll see any original designs (though I wouldn't mind being proven wrong).

Also, it could be possible that samsung makes a gx-20 "upgrade" (like the XTi was to the XT) giving it perhaps better live view, a better screen, and a couple other tweaks but not making it a pro-level camera. The way I see it, if Pentax, a long established name in the photographic community, doesn't really feel it has the opportunity to get into the Pro-level market (D3/1D) (see John Carlson's latest interview), then how can a new commer such as Samsung hope to gain a foothold?

Let's hope that John Carlson is just out of touch and doesn't really know what's going on, because if Pentax is going to limit itself to "bottom feeding," which is essentially what he said, they'll never capture the market share they are supposedly looking to get, and they'll just slowly lose what they've got now. With no upgrade path for existing customers who want more, they'll lose present customers, and with such limited aspirations, they won't have much to entice new customers with. The "they shouldn't compete with Canon/Nikon" attitude is ridiculous - the are competing with Canon and Nikon, whether they like it or not, and the sooner they face that fact (and start acting like it), the better off they'll be.

[clawhammer]

I disagree. There is definately much more of a market in the middle range (k20/d300/40d) and lower than there is in the 5000+ cameras. For a company with limited resources, it doesn't make sense to sink a bunch of money into a top-end body that will not make all that much money, compared with sinking that money into a mid-range body that will sell a lot more units.

[ricardobeat]

I doubt they're going to announce a successor to the GX-20. No one has seen a single one of those live (production model), it's not on sale yet, how can you replace it? I think they're going to announce a high-end (K2) body as other people have mentioned.

[BrendanPK]

Well atleast we will have samsung. They are really going after sony and the big 2.

[24X36NOW]

I disagree. There is definately much more of a market in the middle range (k20/d300/40d) and lower than there is in the 5000+ cameras. For a company with limited resources, it doesn't make sense to sink a bunch of money into a top-end body that will not make all that much money, compared with sinking that money into a mid-range body that will sell a lot more units.

That may be, but less people are going to be buying Pentax gear when it's product line goes not much further than the low to mid consumer range. If they want to increase market share (a stated goal, and one necessary for their long term survival), limiting their aspirations is unlikely to get them there. They'll appeal to fewer professional or enthusiast photograhers, and well informed new buyers will be inclined to dismiss the brand given the limitations of the system. Canon and Nikon have most of the market because they make the vast line of top-flight gear; they may make some consumer-grade stuff too, and may indeed make much of their money from it; but without the "halo effect" of their top tier products, they wouldn't be so dominant in the "larger/consumer" portions of the market.

There was a day (back in manual focus times) when every 3rd party lens you ever wanted was made in PK mount. Now, the top tier 3rd party lenses that go beyond the most popular focal lengths or common maximum apertures are no longer available in PK mount. Further, those that are available are often "backordered" or "not in stock," and others that are supposedly made in PK mount aren't stocked or listed at even the B&Hs and Adoramas of the world. Meanwhile, you can get any 3rd party lens you want in Canon EOS or Nikon mount without any such problems. The camera maker lens offerings underscore the advantages of going with Canon or Nikon and the disadvantages of going with Pentax. Most of Pentax's current offerings are APS-C only, making them useless for users of film bodies, while Canon and Nikon have extensive full frame offerings that can be used on both. At the end of the day, SLR cameras are system cameras and the most important aspect of the system is what lenses are available for it. The more Pentax limits its aspirations, the more it shrinks the array of ever-important lenses. If it acts like an also-ran, the third party lens makers (in particular Sigma, which has the most extensive line) treat it as such, and the options for Pentax shooters shrink.

Pentax once had camera bodies (see the LX) every bit as good as the top pro level bodies from Nikon and Canon. The LX was poorly marketed, but at least it existed, and it gave enthusiasts and pros a Pentax camera to move to when they wanted or needed more than a basic camera. When autofocus swept through, the top level Pentax cameras were no longer the equal of the top Nikon or Canon cameras, and (if it were even possible) the marketing was even worse than it was for the LX. Pentax concentrated then, as Mr. Carlson proposes that they will and/or should do now, on cameras with limited aspirations, and its market share shrank while Canon and Nikon extended their dominance. I don't understand why anyone inside Pentax, or why anyone who supposedly wants to see Pentax succeed and survive, thinks that already used - and already failed - strategy is going to be beneficial. As for the "limited resources" issue, I think people are neglecting to look at affiliate Hoya and partner Samsung - Pentax is no longer a small independent company that has no resources to draw upon.

A good analogy might be GM's Saturn; they produced a terrific entry level product, turned a lot of customers on to their brand, and then basically failed to offer any upgrade path. The result? Customers outgrew the brand and went elsewhere for what they wanted. Let's hope Pentax doesn't make this mistake by putting too many limits on its aspirations.

[barbosas]

6 new lenses? shocking

[mutley]

Let's hope that John Carlson is just out of touch and doesn't really know what's going on, because if Pentax is going to limit itself to "bottom feeding," which is essentially what he said, they'll never capture the market share they are supposedly looking to get, and they'll just slowly lose what they've got now. With no upgrade path for existing customers who want more, they'll lose present customers.

Canon and Nikon have most of the market because they make the vast line of top-flight gear; they may make some consumer-grade stuff too, and may indeed make much of their money from it; but without the "halo effect" of their top tier products, they wouldn't be so dominant in the "larger/consumer" portions of the market.

I don't understand why anyone inside Pentax, or why anyone who supposedly wants to see Pentax succeed and survive, thinks that already used - and already failed - strategy is going to be beneficial.

And, considering the amount of meetings attended by, and 100's of thousands of dollars per year paid to each marketing exec, if they are reading this forum, and your post - you can be absolutely guaranteed that they are chuckling and considering your ideas "cute". Possibly even deserving a pat on the head.

They fervently know that an upgrade path is not that important to keep customers - or that keeping customers is also not that big of a deal if they can keep getting P&S people to buy at least one camera.

They know unwaveringly that providing firmware updates to the DL & DS, etc. models when new features were introduced into their successors was not appreciated by Pentax customers, and hurt the next model's sales horribly.

Therefore, now that there are features and improvements that can be available by firmware for the K10D from the K20D - they will not be offered, and there will never be another firmware update for the K10D. Period. They know losing good will and customer loyalty because of this, is no big deal.

Any suggestions otherwise will be humorously tolerated due to "understandable ignorance" of how hard, wrong, and less "profitable" it would be for Pentax to do it any differently.

So you're excused.

[eurostar]

Pentax once had camera bodies (see the LX) every bit as good as the top pro level bodies from Nikon and Canon. The LX was poorly marketed, but at least it existed, and it gave enthusiasts and pros a Pentax camera to move to when they wanted or needed more than a basic camera. When autofocus swept through, the top level Pentax cameras were no longer the equal of the top Nikon or Canon cameras, and (if it were even possible) the marketing was even worse than it was for the LX. Pentax concentrated then, as Mr. Carlson proposes that they will and/or should do now, on cameras with limited aspirations, and its market share shrank while Canon and Nikon extended their dominance. I don't understand why anyone inside Pentax, or why anyone who supposedly wants to see Pentax succeed and survive, thinks that already used - and already failed - strategy is going to be beneficial.

After the LX and the M lenses, Pentax decided that a pro camera needed more image quality, and created the 645. And that WAS a success, among professionals.

From that point on, development of 35mm gear was a sort of test drive for technologies to be implemented later into the 645.

It worked, until digital become common.

[falconeye]

I disagree that the high-end of a market is not accessible by the smaller competitors.

The opposite is true.

It is in the high-end of a market where you find the big margins. Why many high-end companies are small. Like Leica. Or Porsche (who btw, is buying Volkswagen, right now ). They can afford being small because of the big margins. And this is why Airbus had to build the A380 -- to counter Boeing's cash cow 747.

A smaller competitor NEEDS the high-end to cross-finance the mass market in view of a lack of economy of scale.

So, not going high-end is self murder for everybody but the market leaders.