[Blue]

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

---

To get the Pentax brand, which if nothing else is more synonymous with cameras than Ricoh is. What's a 124 million dollars to a company with a revenue of 20 billion? It's less than a percent. That's what I mean when I say the capitalization is with Ricoh.

They got more than just a brand. They got a plethora of patents and tech including R&D some of which is in files and never implemented. Ricoh isn't new to photograph by any means either. IN fact, by your logic, Panny nor Sony should be doing well. Ricoh had struggled since the late 80s by seeming to often go in the wrong direction. One example is the killing of their version of the K-mount. I know what about capitalization, but Hoya could have done that, but it wasn't a priority to the Hoya boys from the get go. In fact, Hoya got the company in what amounted to a hostile take over. The point is though, there is more to it than "capitalization."

That's really not the way it works -- as evidenced by Hasselblad's goofy NEX cameras. Some strategies are high volume low price, others are low volume high price. . .but honestly it has nothing to do with quality, features, or functionality; it has more to do with market psychology, Illusions of choice, prestige, and branding.

At some point, quality and performance have to come into play.

[mecrox]

Pricing strategy... schmicing strategy... as long as they put out a decent 24 MP camera with some AF skills at a price under $1500 I could care less about their pricing strategy... and at that point, I'll likely pay whatever they ask for a 31 ltd as well. People who want cheap have a perfectly viable option in a K-30 18-135 package.

They already have lots of cameras for folks who want good but cheap. Right now I have a 35, 2.4 which is a great lens for those who want cheap. It will be available for even cheaper when and if I get a 31 ltd. But to me, asking for a DA* or Ltd for cheap is a little ridiculous. Those are really good quality lenses. They are where Pentax should be making their money. If you want cheap, buy cheap, but don't ask for top of the line for cheap. You have other choices, take them. The DA 55-300 is a great alternative to the DA* 300. GO for it. If you want top quality, pay for it.

Just a bit of advice for people obsessing about high lens prices. There's a price for admission to the top quality lens club, whichever camera company you choose.

Yes, but that's the point: "the top quality lens club". Some Pentax lenses are very fine indeed and that's not in disupte. But a lot of their lenses are APS-C only and so cannot be used in due time on FF (other than in crop mode) which puts quite a dent in their rep generally. Most don't have lens motors or weather sealing which includes the three leading top-drawer items, the FA Limiteds. Then there is SDM. Yes, I am being negative here but folks putting down high dollars are going to look at things quite carefully and in the round, I'd guess. When you start totting things up, Pentax isn't quite as firmly in the "top quality lens club" as some folks seem to think. That's not because they aren't capable of producing easily among the best lenses out there but, imho, because they've let their lens catalogue atrophy in recent years. The FA Limiteds are examples of that, imho. Great classic lenses. But not everyone wants classic (with classic PF in some cases). None of this has anything to do with "cheap". Pentax's better lenses are not cheap and they weren't before the recent increases.

[monochrome]

So they really really need to make a head-and-shoulders much better camera for a given amount of dollars than the competition. Which in general they have been doing. But then they started pricing the lenses to be MORE than the equivalents from the competition. So it is hard to tell what they are thinking, price-wise...

At least as I have understood the new direction from a couple covnersations with Pentax USA HQ people, price alone is not the strategy. The strategy is, at a price, to offer more and better features, small size, quality (manufacturing quality), ergonomics and IQ than a competitor's similar-priced camera. Looking at a K50 that appears to be what they are doing.

Lenses seem to be more of a challenge because they are potentially a 20 year investment, not a two year disposable purchase like a phone.

[vonBaloney]

That's really not the way it works -- as evidenced by Hasselblad's goofy NEX cameras. Some strategies are high volume low price, others are low volume high price. . .but honestly it has nothing to do with quality, features, or functionality; it has more to do with market psychology, Illusions of choice, prestige, and branding.

But Pentax is coming from a starting point (with Ricoh) of being perceived as a third-tier crap brand, not as an exclusive high-status brand. People don't make fun of Hasselblad owners for not having a Canikon. If they are trying to make that big jump to a prestige brand in one leap, then they really should change the name...

[konraDarnok]

IN fact, by your logic, Panny nor Sony should be doing well.

I fail to see how, and I don't know what you think I'm arguing. Pentax is a Ricoh company, and they're going to do it the Ricoh way -- which by definition has to be better than the company that no longer exists.

[monochrome]

But Pentax is coming from a starting point (with Ricoh) of being perceived as a third-tier crap brand, not as an exclusive high-status brand. People don't make fun of Hasselblad owners for not having a Canikon. If they are trying to make that big jump to a prestige brand in one leap, then they really should change the name...

Their goals are stated over the intermediate term - 5-7 years - and Ricoh is very disciplined about constant, incremental improvement along the path to achieving a goal.

[normhead]

And I'm hoping it stays that way...all I'm saying is if I have to spend Nikon money to get the same thing from Pentax, I'm taking a long look at that Nikon...

A lot of that depends on how good that new AF system is. It's a mind boggling issue, that Pentax in the past, didn't just ditch their AF team, and just reverse engineer someone else's more capable system. Hopefully that's a part of company pride that won't hinder Pentax/Ricoh. I've already taken a long look at Nikon and Canon... not to say your long look wouldn't produce different results... but I like where Pentax is, any improvement would mean I like them even more. The major issues, MP and AF seem to have been addressed. The only issue now is, are they good enough. I don't need Pentax AF to be as good as an FF system. I need them to be as good as a D7100. Unlike others on here when I do buy an FF , it will be as a compliment to my APS-c system. Not the other way around. Features other camera companies have on bigger systems is irrelevant to those of us who are constantly pushing our weight and size limitations shooting APS-c. I am never going to carry the huge gear box my D800 buddy carries into the bush. It's not going to happen. Whether it's a Pentax FF or Nikon FF inside is irrelevant.

What I'm saying is, what others put into systems costing from 50% to 200% more, that are bigger and heavier, are pretty much irrelevant to those who have accepted the limitations of the Pentax feature set... i.e., existing Pentax customers.

[ElJamoquio]

And I'm hoping it stays that way...all I'm saying is if I have to spend Nikon money to get the same thing from Pentax, I'm taking a long look at that Nikon...

In some respects, it's way more money to go Pentax than Nikon. If you want long-lens capability it makes sense to consider having a Nikon. From there the cheap-but good lenses on Nikon (F/1.8) start making a convincing case to go Nikon.

[normhead]

In some respects, it's way more money to go Pentax than Nikon. If you want long-lens capability it makes sense to consider having a Nikon. From there the cheap-but good lenses on Nikon (F/1.8) start making a convincing case to go Nikon.

OK I'll bite.. what will my $800 K-5 and my $450 A-400 5.6 get me in a Nikon System? You have $1250 to spend. Remember, I have shake reduction on that A-400.

[ElJamoquio]

Still trolling eh...
OK I'll bite.. what will my $800 K-5 and my $450 A-400 5.6 get me in a Nikon System? You have $1250 to spend. Remember, I have shake reduction on that A-400.

I'd much rather have Nikon AF than shake reduction.

Anyway, I'm not sure why you're trolling me and then accusing me of trolling, but of course you already know my opinion. If you want to spend $1k on a system you're better off in Pentax. If you want to spend $2k on a system, well, more often than not right now, you're better off in Nikon.

Check this out:

Nikon D600, 24-85, 50mm f/1.4, 85 mm f/1.8, 28mm f/1.8 = total of $3250 or so.

In Pentax you'd have to design your own 15-55mm f/2.3-2.9, together with a 32mm f/0.9, a 55mm f/1.2, and a 18mm f/1.2. Conservative guess, I'd call that a $10k package, assuming it existed, which of course it doesn't because no one would buy it.

If you want to cheap out get a smaller sensor. If you want a more versatile tool go with a bigger sensor. Initial cost of the camera is higher, but cost of the lenses that do the same thing is much lower.

[Kunzite]

Let's see if I understood it right. If you want to spend $2k on a system, you're better off spending $3250 on a Nikon?

[ElJamoquio]

Let's see if I understood it right.

Mmm hmm.

If you want to spend $2k on a system, you're better off spending $3250 on a Nikon?

If you're going to spend $3k on a system (have you?) most people will be better off on a Nikon, clearly so with the example I've given.

If you're going to spend $1k, most people will be better off on a Pentax, but it depends on your lenses and needs, of course.

I've chosen $2k as a tipping point as you can get a D600+24-85 for that price which will demolish any similar Pentax (i.e. the slower K-5 + 16-50) which I think is actually more expensive. If someone came to me in good faith with a set of desires I'd give them advice, tailored to their situation, but I think most people would be better off in another system at that price.

[Rondec]

I'd much rather have Nikon AF than shake reduction.

Anyway, I'm not sure why you're trolling me and then accusing me of trolling, but of course you already know my opinion. If you want to spend $1k on a system you're better off in Pentax. If you want to spend $2k on a system, well, more often than not right now, you're better off in Nikon.

Check this out:

Nikon D600, 24-85, 50mm f/1.4, 85 mm f/1.8, 28mm f/1.8 = total of $3250 or so.

In Pentax you'd have to design your own 15-55mm f/2.3-2.9, together with a 32mm f/0.9, a 55mm f/1.2, and a 18mm f/1.2. Conservative guess, I'd call that a $10k package, assuming it existed, which of course it doesn't because no one would buy it.

If you want to cheap out get a smaller sensor. If you want a more versatile tool go with a bigger sensor. Initial cost of the camera is higher, but cost of the lenses that do the same thing is much lower.

3250 will go quite a way in the Pentax universe. Who knows what the newest camera will hold with regard to auto focus? My experience with the K5 II is that it is spot on and a significant improvement over the original K5.

Anyway, Norm's 400mm wouldn't benefit much from auto focus capability on any system, as it is a manual focus only lens.

[Kunzite]

$3000? Ignoring the cameras, easily.

[ElJamoquio]

Anyway, Norm's 400mm wouldn't benefit much from auto focus capability on any system, as it is a manual focus only lens.

Of course. That's the primary reason why I mentioned it.

$1600 for a 600mm lens in Nikon
Nikon Nikkor IF ED 600 mm F 5.6 IF ED Lens | eBay

About the same for 400mm f/3.5
Nikon Nikkor 400mm F 3 5 AI s Ed If Lens Flawless Glass Sharp Focus | eBay

But what do you want to do? If your requirements are a 400mm lens where you're OK with APS-C image quality but require image stabilization, then Pentax is a great answer. Personally I don't accept the PF of most of the A-series lenses, but other people just don't take pictures in those situations.

I think most people are more inclined to desire AF than stabilization in that realm though, but it depends on your requirements.

Heck, if you really don't care about IQ then bridge cameras do far more than than a single 400mm lens, and they do it for $250.