[fuent104]

I'm starting to think they had might as well go with a Leica-type brand identity. If their design philosophy is going to be "who cares whether our lenses compete with other brands in terms of performance (speed, silent autofocus, etc.), because they are small, and built out of quality materials," perhaps they'd benefit from marketing themselves as some sort of premium brand for people who are smarter than everyone else. I don't know.

What I do know is that, in 2014, there are some lenses on the market that perform well at wide apertures, and Pentax isn't making many of them. When Sigma lenses are generating more excitement than Pentax lenses (based on what you see when you look at images shot with them), something is very seriously wrong with the world.

[Paul the Sunman]

I'm starting to think they had might as well go with a Leica-type brand identity. If their design philosophy is going to be "who cares whether our lenses compete with other brands in terms of performance (speed, silent autofocus, etc.), because they are small, and built out of quality materials," perhaps they'd benefit from marketing themselves as some sort of premium brand for people who are smarter than everyone else. I don't know.

What I do know is that, in 2014, there are some lenses on the market that perform well at wide apertures, and Pentax isn't making many of them. When Sigma lenses are generating more excitement than Pentax lenses (based on what you see when you look at images shot with them), something is very seriously wrong with the world.

Yes, yes, I know, Sigma is producing fabulous quality lenses lately. But look at their size! Does Pentax really have to react to every direction other manufacturers go in? Pentax is niche. Small, well built, and WR seem like pretty good selling points to me. Buy Sigma K-mount if that's what you want.

[thibs]

What I do know is that, in 2014, there are some lenses on the market that perform well at wide apertures, and Pentax isn't making many of them. When Sigma lenses are generating more excitement than Pentax lenses (based on what you see when you look at images shot with them), something is very seriously wrong with the world.

Perform well at wide aperture on what criteria ? Sharpness? Indeed.
But if we go again on a "lens not utterly sharp at f/1.0 or is a lemon" kind of thing (of course pushed it a bit lol) then, I'll unplug.
Pentax is not (maybe with FF ?) a sharpest lens company. Period.

[monochrome]

I'm starting to think they had might as well go with a Leica-type brand identity. If their design philosophy is going to be "who cares whether our lenses compete with other brands in terms of performance (speed, silent autofocus, etc.), because they are small, and built out of quality materials," perhaps they'd benefit from marketing themselves as some sort of premium brand for people who are smarter than everyone else. I don't know.

I don't know if that specifically is where they want to go, but it makes sense that they want to brand themselves as the alternative camera to Canon/Nikon and maybe Sony. We already have CaNikon and they do what they do very well. A third CaNikon adds nothing but noise to the decision set. Besides, it would be corporate suicide to compete with CaNikon on their terms. Pentax must believe, "If you need or want what they make - go get it. There's nothing wrong with that. This is what we make. If you need or want what we make come over here and get it, because you won't find it anywhere else."

My personal belief is they don't give a whit about Canon. They care about Nikon and want to be seen as the alternative to Nikon - same features, better design and output at a better price, with a little social edginess thrown in.

There's a huge gap between Nikon and Leica. I could see Ricoh taking Pentax's top line into that gap eventually.

[cali92rs]

They care about Nikon and want to be seen as the alternative to Nikon - same features, better design and output at a better price, with a little social edginess thrown in.

.

I agree with most of what you say...except this statement.
I don't see how Ricoh is a better priced alternative than Nikon. They were before the huge price increases a couple years ago, that's not the case anymore.

[monochrome]

They were before the huge price increases a couple years ago, that's not the case anymore.

Only in the USA, where Ned B. was dumping product into the channel to clear inventory Hoya bought. Eventually Pentax Canada and Pentax EU (and even C.R. Kennedy in OZ) got tired of competing with B&H, Adorama and Pentax USA. The value proposition is not price today - price is a cheapening value proposition.

I hear your argument and I agree somewhat, but it is awfully difficult to compare prices apples to apples with such variance in spec.'s of the lenses. I could make a case that Pentax best lenses are nearly free compared to Nikon and Canon best lenses.

[ElJamoquio]

Pentax best lenses are nearly free compared to Nikon and Canon best lenses.

Really? I mean, not comparing the 600mm F/4 to the 560 F/5.6, but actually comparing the 16-50 to the 17-55, etc, etc?

The only one I'm aware of where the specs are similar and pentax is cheaper is the 55 f/1.4 if you compare it to the Nikon 58 F/1.4 which is a kinda silly lens.

I love pentax lenses but I'm not sure who's comparing a, say, 21mm F/3.2 lens to a 24mm F/1.4 lens.

[Eric Auer]

I could make a case that Pentax best lenses are nearly free compared to Nikon and Canon best lenses.

Wow.

That's taking Fanboyism to the next level.

[monochrome]

Wow.

That's taking Fanboyism to the next level.

Fanboy? That's a first.

It's Ricoh that is scrambled for Choir.

[dtmateojr]

When Sigma lenses are generating more excitement than Pentax lenses (based on what you see when you look at images shot with them), something is very seriously wrong with the world.

This is an incorrect way of thinking. Sigma can make gear heads burst in their pants because they can mount their lenses in their chosen brand. They are cheaper alternatives. Only Pentax users can appreciate Pentax lenses which in the world of photography does not even count.

[fuent104]

This is an incorrect way of thinking. Sigma can make gear heads burst in their pants because they can mount their lenses in their chosen brand. They are cheaper alternatives. Only Pentax users can appreciate Pentax lenses which in the world of photography does not even count.

I respectfully disagree. Any company can put out a lens that makes users of other systems drool, if they choose to do so.

[dtmateojr]

I respectfully disagree. Any company can put out a lens that makes users of other systems drool, if they choose to do so.

Even if they can't use the lenses? That's gear whoring to an extreme level.

[dtmateojr]

Let's try to analyze this for a bit. Why would I buy the 20-40 over the Tamron 17-50/2.8 or Sigma 18-35/1.8? For the WR? If I get into a situation where WR might help I have more important things to worry about: my pictures. Getting a decent shot when rain or salt spray has covered the front element is close to nothing.

[Eric Auer]

That's a first.

Good survival strategy.

[monochrome]

Good survival strategy.

Whatever. Two years ago I wondered if Pentax would exit the US market altogether. A year ago I wondered if Pentax would survive. I don't any more.

Pentax products are neither better nor worse than other brands. They're different, and challenging to contrast fairly with other brands even for people who want to be fair.

I'm hardly a Fanboy. I've criticized Pentax business strategy in the USA many, many times. I've also written that new management is systematically changing those business strategies.

Yet on this Forum every single thread is about why Pentax isn't Canon or Nikon or Sony or less expensive or FF, as illustrated by posters who want Pentax to be just another Canon or Nikon or Sony. That just isn't going to happen. it isn't. Anyone who wants CaNikon or Sony products or prices can get it right now - and there's nothing wrong with that.

I really don't write about gear much - I really don't know much about modern gear anyway. I write about Ricoh and Pentax. I am sort of a lone voice with my "Plan" and intermediate term and be patient stuff. Funny thing that so few have taken the time to think about whether there is some substance to what I write.

The story isn't about a Pentax survival strategy. It is about how they're going to double their market share in the next 5 - 7 years, which I firmly believe they will do.