[vonBaloney]

There was no "because." I just stated a simple fact. They did not make it as a company while pursuing a certain price strategy in their camera division. How much that contributed to their dissolution is a matter of debate, but I doubt it's a coincidence that's what got sold off for a hundred and twenty four million dollars to Ricoh. Think about that, there are lotto winners that could have bought it. Not that they would have got much with it. The capitalization is in Ricoh.

Yes, but you made the statement as if some other strategy could have worked, therefore the "because" was implicit. My point is that their supposed "strategy" was irrelevant because the parent company had no interest in the success of that division, and so were doomed no matter what the strategy. They simply had no support. You could have just as easily have said they should change the name to something other than Pentax because the company called "Pentax" failed, or that they shouldn't sell cameras with weather-sealing and SR because the company that sold cameras with those features failed. Those are failed strategies according to your logic. But they are all non-sequiturs.

[ElJamoquio]

Is that relevant to something in this conversation?

.
Yes.

[monochrome]

Ok, now how about the important part of your statement, that is was *because* of their supposed "cheap" strategy, and not due to some other factor like the fact that Hoya never ever had any interest in the camera division and gave them no support? (And in fact gutted much of it.) Unless you're talking pre-Hoya...

Indeed, it is speculated that from the very beginning of the first attempt to merge Pentax Hoya intended to sell the camera division. What isn't so clear is that reducing headcount, discontinuing products those "employees" assembled and liquidatinig inventory at low prices - then recouping the cost of moving production facilites to lower-cost Vietnam - by using a high-volume, low-price strategy was an intentional part of Hoya's preparation of Cameras for sale.

Once acquired, that pricing strategy no longer makes sense.

[normhead]

.
Yes.

I say "no", let's call the whole thing off.

[vonBaloney]

Indeed, it is speculated that from the very beginning of the first attempt to merge Pentax Hoya intended to sell the camera division. What isn't so clear is that reducing headcount, discontinuing products those "employees" assembled and liquidatinig inventory at low prices - then recouping the cost of moving production facilites to lower-cost Vietnam - by using a high-volume, low-price strategy was an intentional part of Hoya's preparation of Cameras for sale.

Once acquired, that pricing strategy no longer makes sense.

Yes, and of course if they are going to have high-quality they are going to have to pay for it, and that's fine. My ultimate point is that at least from the time of the K10D, which is my first Pentax DSLR and when I started paying attention, if you had X amount of money to spend, say $1500, you could always get a better camera for those dollars with Pentax than from Canon or Nikon. Now it seems people are arguing that should change, that my $1500 to Pentax should get me just about the same thing I'd get from Nikon at that price, and that Pentax will somehow win out just on superior ergonomics, etc. But what doesn't seem to be acknowledged is that "being market leaders" and that "being popular" and having support for your system where ever you turn and simply fitting in by having what everyone else has are MAJOR positive features for a brand. And features Pentax cannot just choose to have. 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...

[normhead]

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.

[konraDarnok]

If Ricoh didn't get much, why did they buy it?

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.

[normhead]

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.

Personally I'm wondering if Ricoh didn't have a hand in this 27 point tracking AF system... they may have had technology in their camera division just waiting for a place to be put to good use. What's better, having one camera engineering team, or two, sharing technologies. It's an instant R&D boost.

[konraDarnok]

Yes, but you made the statement as if some other strategy could have worked, therefore the "because" was implicit. My point is that their supposed "strategy" was irrelevant because the parent company had no interest in the success of that division, and so were doomed no matter what the strategy. They simply had no support. You could have just as easily have said they should change the name to something other than Pentax because the company called "Pentax" failed, or that they shouldn't sell cameras with weather-sealing and SR because the company that sold cameras with those features failed. Those are failed strategies according to your logic. But they are all non-sequiturs.

Ricoh isn't dropping SR, weather sealing, or the Pentax name however. So no, that's not "according to my logic." I'm simply making the assumption Ricoh is keeping what works and ditching what doesn't with their new camera brand in order to make them money.

[vonBaloney]

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.

It is not about being "cheap", but being competitive. There are features that Nikon and Canon have by being market leaders, features that Pentax cannot match. Therefore, by DEFAULT anything by Pentax of the exact same quality as the competition is automatically "worth" less in the market. And so it follows that they must actually price it less, or they need to make something *clearly* better than the competition at the same price. Or else many of the reasons to buy Pentax simple evaporate...

[vonBaloney]

Ricoh isn't dropping SR, weather sealing, or the Pentax name however. So no, that's not "according to my logic." I'm simply making the assumption Ricoh is keeping what works and ditching what doesn't with their new camera brand in order to make them money.

That remains to be seen. It is hardly clear what their price strategy even is...

[normhead]

It is not about being "cheap", but being competitive. There are features that Nikon and Canon have by being market leaders, features that Pentax cannot match. Therefore, by DEFAULT anything by Pentax of the exact same quality as the competition is automatically "worth" less in the market. And so it follows that they must actually price it less, or they need to make something *clearly* better than the competition at the same price. Or else many of the reasons to buy Pentax simple evaporate...

And there are areas where Pentax is clearly competitive... I don't shop on such contrived criteria.

[konraDarnok]

Personally I'm wondering if Ricoh didn't have a hand in this 27 point tracking AF system... they may have had technology in their camera division just waiting for a place to be put to good use. What's better, having one camera engineering team, or two, sharing technologies. It's an instant R&D boost.

I'm certain of it. There are plenty of people complaining about Ricoh and their supposed snubbing of Pentax, but these guys have money like Pentax never had -- and they already have an established corporate rivalry with Canon in the copier business.

[vonBaloney]

And there are areas where Pentax is clearly competitive...

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...

[konraDarnok]

Therefore, by DEFAULT anything by Pentax of the exact same quality as the competition is automatically "worth" less in the market.

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.