Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-17-2014, 08:38 PM - 2 Likes   #331
Veteran Member
zoolander's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Brisbane
Photos: Albums
Posts: 334
QuoteOriginally posted by kadajawi Quote
2. Bad, bad idea. If you mean overall getting rid of them. If you mean getting rid of the K-50 and K-500... still bad idea, why would they? The K-S1 seems to be an addition to those cameras, not a replacement.
Its natural progression, cameras and sensors have a 2 year life cycle. If a "noob" customer walks into a shop and has to choose between a Pentax with 16mp's, and a Canon 20mp or Nikon 24 mp camera, which one would he/she choose ? The sensor makers skipped over 18mp, to surpass canon, this put Sony, Nikon and Pentax 3 generations ahead, and it was too far, and that really shows how much they wanted to surpass Canon. But now they pegged things back like Sony with 20mp on the A58, and now Pentax with the K-S1. I think they caught canon with their pants down and stopped and went, oh, Canon didn't have a 20mp sensor ready nor a 22mp sensor and we've just blasted past them at "Ludicrous speed" (Spaceballs). Lets peg things back a bit and milk the mega pixel rise for our own "Creative destruction" purposes.

I was told that you don't really need anything more than 10mp. But thats not the point, the market wants more and more and more, and as the technology improves, eventually it will hit a glass ceiling. Who knows when that will happen, maybe at 4 billion pixels for crop sensor, I know there's probably some math out there that won't allow it unless its a "Front-and-backlit-plasma-sensor, or dark-matter-sensor, or plasma-fractal-sensor !

QuoteOriginally posted by kadajawi Quote
Ricoh:
No one is entitled to marketshare. Nokia thought they were, now they are only a part of Microsoft. RIM thought they were, now they are nearly bankrupt. Palm thought they were, now all that is left of Palm is a part of LG that develops the software for the Smart UI part of LG TVs.
I beg to differ and so do governments and legislative bodies, plus the securities and investment agency/watchdogs in western governments. These things are usually tied to anti-monopoly corporate behavior, or price-fixing, corporate collusion activity etc etc.

I think if Canon or Nikon had its way, they would eliminate all its competition - and thats exactly what they are doing. The sponsorship program, is in a nutshell unlawful, and distorts the market. The sponsorship programs - or Photographer welfare program - turns photographers into walking and talking billboards, with no disclaimer stating they're sponsored by a company. Also websites which purport to be independent are actually controlled by the corporate sponsor. Magazines, where on one page there's a full page add for a camera, and the adjacent page there's a glowing review of that camera.

Here where I live, certain businesses only stock Canon and Nikon DSLR's, and their sales people support the duopoly. You can walk into a camera store, and salespeople ONLY push Canon and Nikon, and largely do not know and do not care about the other brands on the shelves. Its not an even playing field ! Where as TV's, there are many brands, and stores do not lock-out other brands.

So why is there so much ant-competitive corporate behavior in the photography industry ? The sponsorship programs have caused the market to be distorted, and the industry has become a duopoly.

So if any other manufacturer tries to step into the market, there is a MASSIVE outcry from individuals (who are sponsored), acting as agent provocateurs. They are even on this site and many others, constantly talking down Pentax or other brands. There is an army of canikonites in the pockets of Canon and Nikon.

So as an example, you may find the Ricoh GR going head to head against the Nikon thing, the Ricoh is better, but the reviewers (Who are sponsored), saying its not good enough. So how can Ricoh step into the industry with products when they can never gain acceptance from photographers.

So what Canon and Nikon have done with the sponsorship programs and the industry, has made it extremely difficult for other manufacturers to gain a foothold in the market- where there are principles of western law, the rule of law and democracy, plus the free market ! People are saying that Canon and Nikon have done very little in the way of innovation, in fact - Canon and Nikons business model and practices, are stifling innovation in the manufacturing industry. Companies are frightened to come to the market with products in fear of the canikon wolves tearing apart the products, and that company being forced to shut down. Sony and Pentax have come to the market with innovations, in-spite of all of this. Sony pioneered APS-C mirrorless, and 35mm mirrorless, and the canikon army derided it and mocked it - with the political arm of Canikon (the sponsored photographers). Then on the other hand, Nikon and Canon are moving into Sony, fujifilm and the others territory of mirrorless - BECAUSE THE CANIKON FORCES THEM OUT OF THE DSLR MARKET ! Canon and Nikon have no business being in mirrorless - IN PRINCIPLE ! (because of the political wing locking the other brands out of the DSLR market).

The Photographic industry is one of the most corrupt industries I've seen. The car industry is pretty bad with the kickbacks to the magazines, buts nothing compared to the canikon.

So as far as I'm concerned, Ricoh IS entitled to a market position and share, and so is Pentax. This is supported by democratic principles, free market principles and are enshrined in laws. Canon and Nikon and the political wing of the sponsored photographers, are destroying the industry with the duopoly, and you should not support their products in any way. Though professional photographers will say - hang on a minute, Canon and Nikon have given us the tools for our profession, we should support them because of the products. But if Canon and Nikon are so good, why do they need to give away cameras and lenses to professionals - a bribe is a bribe !

Hopefully governments will step in and punish Canon and Nikon with massive fines, and abolish the industry bribes and restore a level playing field. Ricoh is entitled to a market share, and hopefully Canon, Nikon and their cronies are shut down. How did the canikon get so big - through bribery, plane and simple corruption. All sponsored photographers and supporters of sponsorship should hang their heads in shame, because its disgraceful.

09-18-2014, 01:03 AM   #332
Pentaxian
Clavius's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: De Klundert
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,115
QuoteOriginally posted by zoolander Quote
I know there's probably some math out there that won't allow it unless its a "Front-and-backlit-plasma-sensor, or dark-matter-sensor, or plasma-fractal-sensor !
I didn't like the dark matter sensor, IQ was good, but the corners tended to be lighter then the center.



QuoteOriginally posted by zoolander Quote
I beg to differ and so do governments and legislative bodies, plus the securities and investment agency/watchdogs in western governments. These things are usually tied to anti-monopoly corporate behavior, or price-fixing, corporate collusion activity etc etc.

I think if Canon or Nikon had its way, they would eliminate all its competition - and thats exactly what they are doing. The sponsorship program, is in a nutshell unlawful, and distorts the market. The sponsorship programs - or Photographer welfare program - turns photographers into walking and talking billboards, with no disclaimer stating they're sponsored by a company. Also websites which purport to be independent are actually controlled by the corporate sponsor. Magazines, where on one page there's a full page add for a camera, and the adjacent page there's a glowing review of that camera.

Here where I live, certain businesses only stock Canon and Nikon DSLR's, and their sales people support the duopoly. You can walk into a camera store, and salespeople ONLY push Canon and Nikon, and largely do not know and do not care about the other brands on the shelves. Its not an even playing field ! Where as TV's, there are many brands, and stores do not lock-out other brands.

So why is there so much ant-competitive corporate behavior in the photography industry ? The sponsorship programs have caused the market to be distorted, and the industry has become a duopoly.

So if any other manufacturer tries to step into the market, there is a MASSIVE outcry from individuals (who are sponsored), acting as agent provocateurs. They are even on this site and many others, constantly talking down Pentax or other brands. There is an army of canikonites in the pockets of Canon and Nikon.

So as an example, you may find the Ricoh GR going head to head against the Nikon thing, the Ricoh is better, but the reviewers (Who are sponsored), saying its not good enough. So how can Ricoh step into the industry with products when they can never gain acceptance from photographers.

So what Canon and Nikon have done with the sponsorship programs and the industry, has made it extremely difficult for other manufacturers to gain a foothold in the market- where there are principles of western law, the rule of law and democracy, plus the free market ! People are saying that Canon and Nikon have done very little in the way of innovation, in fact - Canon and Nikons business model and practices, are stifling innovation in the manufacturing industry. Companies are frightened to come to the market with products in fear of the canikon wolves tearing apart the products, and that company being forced to shut down. Sony and Pentax have come to the market with innovations, in-spite of all of this. Sony pioneered APS-C mirrorless, and 35mm mirrorless, and the canikon army derided it and mocked it - with the political arm of Canikon (the sponsored photographers). Then on the other hand, Nikon and Canon are moving into Sony, fujifilm and the others territory of mirrorless - BECAUSE THE CANIKON FORCES THEM OUT OF THE DSLR MARKET ! Canon and Nikon have no business being in mirrorless - IN PRINCIPLE ! (because of the political wing locking the other brands out of the DSLR market).

The Photographic industry is one of the most corrupt industries I've seen. The car industry is pretty bad with the kickbacks to the magazines, buts nothing compared to the canikon.

So as far as I'm concerned, Ricoh IS entitled to a market position and share, and so is Pentax. This is supported by democratic principles, free market principles and are enshrined in laws. Canon and Nikon and the political wing of the sponsored photographers, are destroying the industry with the duopoly, and you should not support their products in any way. Though professional photographers will say - hang on a minute, Canon and Nikon have given us the tools for our profession, we should support them because of the products. But if Canon and Nikon are so good, why do they need to give away cameras and lenses to professionals - a bribe is a bribe !

Hopefully governments will step in and punish Canon and Nikon with massive fines, and abolish the industry bribes and restore a level playing field. Ricoh is entitled to a market share, and hopefully Canon, Nikon and their cronies are shut down. How did the canikon get so big - through bribery, plane and simple corruption. All sponsored photographers and supporters of sponsorship should hang their heads in shame, because its disgraceful.
Yes, there SHOULD be a level playing field. I agree 100%. But what's your theorie on why those government bodies that should have guarded and guarenteed that level playing field haven't interrupted yet? CaNikon duopoly has flourished for a very long time now. They even succeeded in not only brainwashing their own users, but also a lot from the other brands. Pentaxians want Pentax to be just like CaNikon. And ohw, if it doesn't have a bouncing rattling mirror, it just isn't a professional camera.
09-18-2014, 03:13 AM   #333
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,609
QuoteOriginally posted by zoolander Quote
Its natural progression, cameras and sensors have a 2 year life cycle. If a "noob" customer walks into a shop and has to choose between a Pentax with 16mp's, and a Canon 20mp or Nikon 24 mp camera, which one would he/she choose ? The sensor makers skipped over 18mp, to surpass canon, this put Sony, Nikon and Pentax 3 generations ahead, and it was too far, and that really shows how much they wanted to surpass Canon. But now they pegged things back like Sony with 20mp on the A58, and now Pentax with the K-S1. I think they caught canon with their pants down and stopped and went, oh, Canon didn't have a 20mp sensor ready nor a 22mp sensor and we've just blasted past them at "Ludicrous speed" (Spaceballs). Lets peg things back a bit and milk the mega pixel rise for our own "Creative destruction" purposes.

I was told that you don't really need anything more than 10mp. But thats not the point, the market wants more and more and more, and as the technology improves, eventually it will hit a glass ceiling. Who knows when that will happen, maybe at 4 billion pixels for crop sensor, I know there's probably some math out there that won't allow it unless its a "Front-and-backlit-plasma-sensor, or dark-matter-sensor, or plasma-fractal-sensor !
Why is the A7S such a big deal when you need a billion pixels? It's not necessary to create a camera that is not as good as it can be, just because some noobs will fall for it. I truly hope Pentax is above that.


QuoteQuote:
I beg to differ and so do governments and legislative bodies, plus the securities and investment agency/watchdogs in western governments. These things are usually tied to anti-monopoly corporate behavior, or price-fixing, corporate collusion activity etc etc.

I think if Canon or Nikon had its way, they would eliminate all its competition - and thats exactly what they are doing. The sponsorship program, is in a nutshell unlawful, and distorts the market. The sponsorship programs - or Photographer welfare program - turns photographers into walking and talking billboards, with no disclaimer stating they're sponsored by a company. Also websites which purport to be independent are actually controlled by the corporate sponsor. Magazines, where on one page there's a full page add for a camera, and the adjacent page there's a glowing review of that camera.

Here where I live, certain businesses only stock Canon and Nikon DSLR's, and their sales people support the duopoly. You can walk into a camera store, and salespeople ONLY push Canon and Nikon, and largely do not know and do not care about the other brands on the shelves. Its not an even playing field ! Where as TV's, there are many brands, and stores do not lock-out other brands.

So why is there so much ant-competitive corporate behavior in the photography industry ? The sponsorship programs have caused the market to be distorted, and the industry has become a duopoly.

So if any other manufacturer tries to step into the market, there is a MASSIVE outcry from individuals (who are sponsored), acting as agent provocateurs. They are even on this site and many others, constantly talking down Pentax or other brands. There is an army of canikonites in the pockets of Canon and Nikon.

So as an example, you may find the Ricoh GR going head to head against the Nikon thing, the Ricoh is better, but the reviewers (Who are sponsored), saying its not good enough. So how can Ricoh step into the industry with products when they can never gain acceptance from photographers.

So what Canon and Nikon have done with the sponsorship programs and the industry, has made it extremely difficult for other manufacturers to gain a foothold in the market- where there are principles of western law, the rule of law and democracy, plus the free market ! People are saying that Canon and Nikon have done very little in the way of innovation, in fact - Canon and Nikons business model and practices, are stifling innovation in the manufacturing industry. Companies are frightened to come to the market with products in fear of the canikon wolves tearing apart the products, and that company being forced to shut down. Sony and Pentax have come to the market with innovations, in-spite of all of this. Sony pioneered APS-C mirrorless, and 35mm mirrorless, and the canikon army derided it and mocked it - with the political arm of Canikon (the sponsored photographers). Then on the other hand, Nikon and Canon are moving into Sony, fujifilm and the others territory of mirrorless - BECAUSE THE CANIKON FORCES THEM OUT OF THE DSLR MARKET ! Canon and Nikon have no business being in mirrorless - IN PRINCIPLE ! (because of the political wing locking the other brands out of the DSLR market).

The Photographic industry is one of the most corrupt industries I've seen. The car industry is pretty bad with the kickbacks to the magazines, buts nothing compared to the canikon.

So as far as I'm concerned, Ricoh IS entitled to a market position and share, and so is Pentax. This is supported by democratic principles, free market principles and are enshrined in laws. Canon and Nikon and the political wing of the sponsored photographers, are destroying the industry with the duopoly, and you should not support their products in any way. Though professional photographers will say - hang on a minute, Canon and Nikon have given us the tools for our profession, we should support them because of the products. But if Canon and Nikon are so good, why do they need to give away cameras and lenses to professionals - a bribe is a bribe !

Hopefully governments will step in and punish Canon and Nikon with massive fines, and abolish the industry bribes and restore a level playing field. Ricoh is entitled to a market share, and hopefully Canon, Nikon and their cronies are shut down. How did the canikon get so big - through bribery, plane and simple corruption. All sponsored photographers and supporters of sponsorship should hang their heads in shame, because its disgraceful.
Ok, now I think you are going over board. Sponsorship programs? Panasonic is openly sponsoring photographers, Fuji does, and so does IIRC Olympus, and probably Sony too. Wouldn't be surprised if Samsung did it. And photographers under those programs tend to give disclaimers.


Retail availability? Why can I usually see Canon, Nikon, Sony, and often times Samsung, Panasonic and Fuji in stores? Sometimes Olympus too. Shouldn't it be Canikon only, if what you said was true? Companies do give shops incentives to place their products in a (if possible prominent) location, that's nothing new. If Pentax doesn't want to play the game, well, their own fault. Likewise, sales people are given incentives for every camera of a brand they sell. Again, Pentax isn't trying to compete. Would it be good if these practices stopped? Yes, perhaps, but it would also hurt the small players, who right now at least have the chance of entering the market and getting to customers. Other small brands are making use of the system, Pentax doesn't. And if such a system didn't exist, stores would just stock what people usually demand, and I'm afraid for the uninformed masses that will be Canon and Nikon, and those who inform themselves may go for the smaller players, but probably not Pentax at this point, because Pentax is making cameras that are better than Canikon, but not as good as their other competitors.


Btw., don't think for one second that these business practices don't apply to TVs too.


I wouldn't be surprised if not participating allows Pentax to offer cameras at lower prices, but if that is a better strategy...?
09-18-2014, 05:07 PM   #334
Veteran Member
zoolander's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Brisbane
Photos: Albums
Posts: 334
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
I didn't like the dark matter sensor, IQ was good, but the corners tended to be lighter then the center.
Well I guess the dark matter sensor, being made from an array of dark matter (Dark matter being invisible and undetectable matter), and can draw in light like never before. But the problem is the circuitry is run across the face of the sensor, and until they can run the wires behind it - in a back-lit arrangement - it will continue to suffer from vignetting.

Hopefully a "Nano fractal antenna array sensor" can be developed, because it will be cheaper to produce and yield a similar resolution to the dark matter sensor. As we all know, the dark matter mining industry is (1.) extremely costly. (2.) Ore bodies are being depleted rapidly due to the demand for military grade dark matter, used in carpet bombing of the Zlax-ars on the rim of our galaxy (3.) Labor costs have also skyrocketed because the only people qualified to mine dark matter are the Ooompa Loompa's, and the Oompa Loompa's Union has been demanding greater safety standards after the GoodyearFisherPrice mine disaster, and the Oompa Loompa uprisings. (4.) GoodyearFisherPrice has seen the companies share price tumble, due to the Oompa Loompa class action of claimed "sub-neural cerebral black holes" caused by breathing in the dark matter - a trait seen in "Crystal Black Matter" addicts.

I see there is no choice but a switch away from dark matter based sensors !

09-18-2014, 06:26 PM   #335
Veteran Member
zoolander's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Brisbane
Photos: Albums
Posts: 334
QuoteOriginally posted by kadajawi Quote
Ok, now I think you are going over board. Sponsorship programs? Panasonic is openly sponsoring photographers, Fuji does, and so does IIRC Olympus, and probably Sony too. Wouldn't be surprised if Samsung did it. And photographers under those programs tend to give disclaimers.
In the industry which I've worked in for nearly 20 years, I've seen various kinds of kickbacks. Those kickbacks usual favor the companies or corporations. Its usually done to keep the prices artificially high of products they trade in, and to give an unfair advantage to slightly larger companies, while the smaller companies struggle.

So in my experience, coming from a different industry, I can see flagrant and open kickbacks in the photographic industry. There should be no argument here, kickbacks in ANY industry are unlawful and give unfair advantages to certain companies and individuals.

So if I approached a supplier and asked if they can GIVE me free stock, and in turn I plastered all I have with that companies logo - what kind of endorsement would that be ? (1.) I'm a sellout (2.) I'm only giving the endorsement because I'm getting free stuff.

If people in the industry found out that I was receiving free goods in return for endorsing the products, I would be shunned and become a laughing stock in my industry. That company too would become a laughing stock, as it would be perceived as being desperate for business. In turn if found out, that company would be shunned for such a practice, and prosecuted.

There is one company in my industry which is so underhanded and has an atrocious environmental record, offering "Accreditation". You have to do a short course, and receive the accreditation, and once accredited you can advertise the accreditation. I think there are greater discounts on products once you gain accreditation. But "Accreditation" is a phony concept, because accreditation is redundant due to the fact that processes are governed by the Federal governments standards regulatory body - "Australian Standards" or "Standards Australia", which can also conform to "International Standards Organisation" [ISO insert code number here]. So accreditation from a supplier is idiotic and transparent, and you should know procedures off by heart due to the training you receive. That training is based on the government and international scientists who created the standards.

I recall seeing news stories about doctors receiving sponsorship and kickbacks from pharmaceutical companies, forcing their patients to buying certain brands. The government stepped in to stop the practice, and to give patients the options to buy generic medicines. The Pharmaceutical companies were trying to get the doctors in their pockets, to lockout other companies - which is anti-competitive corporate behavior.

Now whats going on here in photography is ridiculous ! I've never seen such a level of unprofessionalism, and I have totally lost respect for professional photographers. If these levels of kickbacks were in my industry, you would become a laughing stock for being a sell-out. But in photography, its part and parcel of the industry.

I cannot believe that people think kickbacks to professionals is just fine and dandy, and a normal business practice when its not and is unlawful. If more and more manufacturers are involved in the practice, well then I won't be supporting those brands. I hope Pentax doesn't do it either, because one day when the "s%!t hits the fan", there'll be fines and jail terms for CEO's.

I've seen countless camera or lens reviews, be they websites or video's, and many of them are by sponsored photographers and I have NEVER EVER seen a disclaimer. What am I supposed to spend a half an hour on their website hunting for the disclaimer ? It should be there at the top of the webpage or in the beginning of the video. This industry is rife with this problem.

So much unprofessionalism its astounding ! An industry without a moral compass. Plus its hidden in plane sight !

---------- Post added 09-19-14 at 11:39 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by kadajawi Quote
Btw., don't think for one second that these business practices don't apply to TVs too.
So what you are saying is that a TV Brand (A) wholesaler, contacts a retailer, and offers the owner half a dozen free TV's for him and his family. In return he needs to cut off supply from some other brands, and push brand "A" in his store.

Yeah that can happen, its called "anti-competitive corporate behavior" - and is punishable by law. If that goes on, both the retailer and the wholesaler would have to hide these things. The wholesaler would have to write-off the bribe TV's as damaged for the tax office.

But come on, the kickbacks are out in the open in photography. Eventually it will come to an end. Or in my case, the moment I discovered this and it all sank in, I decided to Boycott Canon and Nikon. I suspect that Fujifilm is doing it too, just as you mentioned it, and when I confirm it, I will boycott them too.
09-18-2014, 06:47 PM   #336
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,609
The thing is, Pentax could play that game too. And it gives smaller companies the chance of pushing the big boys aside and capturing marketshare. If it weren't for these kickbacks, most shops may really just carry Canikon, because that's the easiest. Those stocks get cleared fast, shops don't have to worry about not ever being able to sell a particular camera or lens (that's how I got a brand new (well, unused) Tokina 80-200 for a ridiculously low price (IIRC something like $40 or so)... the shop was desperate to get rid of it, using up space on the shelf).


Photographers need money too. Gear is expensive, and most don't earn much, especially if you're more into creating art than something that is commercially viable. I listen to a few photography podcasts, including one that has guest photographers talking on a regular basis, and they speak openly about being sponsored by Panasonic for example (they call it Panasonic luminiaries or so?). Of course that info has to be out there, and IMHO reviewers themselves should not be sponsored, and even if they are, it should be the first line. If not, that's unprofessional and should be punished.


In any case, I do think Pentax should spend some money for retail presence, and to sales people for selling a Pentax. They need to sell cameras, after all. If anything it is Canon and Nikon who don't have to do it. No shop can afford not to offer their cameras, and people will buy them anyway, unless the sales personal is trying to talk them out of it.


Oh, and I don't think it is THAT bad in the photography business. Incentives for selling a camera of your brand, sure. And for the shop, like extra discounts, or taking back cameras if they can't be sold, or perhaps payments to be in the shop at all... that sort of thing. Not bribery or forcing shops not to carry other products. Keep in mind that shops need a reason why a camera should be in stock, and perhaps be displayed for everyone to see (space is limited, and there are many camera models out there...). Normally the shops would just carry what they know will get sold, and that would basically mean Pentax is out.
09-18-2014, 07:08 PM   #337
Veteran Member
zoolander's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Brisbane
Photos: Albums
Posts: 334
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
Yes, there SHOULD be a level playing field. I agree 100%. But what's your theorie on why those government bodies that should have guarded and guarenteed that level playing field haven't interrupted yet? CaNikon duopoly has flourished for a very long time now. They even succeeded in not only brainwashing their own users, but also a lot from the other brands. Pentaxians want Pentax to be just like CaNikon. And ohw, if it doesn't have a bouncing rattling mirror, it just isn't a professional camera.
Whats my theory on why the governments haven't interrupted the kickbacks ? Its "Chicken Theory" ! It goes like this:

During the second world war, an Italian soldier was hungry so he snuck into somebodies chicken coop, and grabbed a handful of chickens. When hearing the commotion, the owner ran out to discover the Italian soldier stealing his chickens, the soldiers answer was to offer the owner one of the chickens - here, do you want a chicken ?

So when the government officers go to see the heads of Canon and Nikon, and start accusing them of bad business practice. They'll respond, yeah okay so you caught us, but - here, do you want a camera ?

---------- Post added 09-19-14 at 12:41 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by kadajawi Quote
Photographers need money too. Gear is expensive, and most don't earn much, especially if you're more into creating art than something that is commercially viable.
Yeah I agree camera gear is expensive. But so are courier vans. If I wanted to buy a new Van and become a contract courier, I have to go to Toyota or Hyundai and buy a $35,000 van. Certain courier companies will not allow their contractors to run vans older than 5 years. Now what are the chances of getting a free van from Toyota or Hyundai ? Zip ! I either need cash-money or credit to buy the van. So thats the risk I would have to take to get my foot in the door to become a contract courier.

So if you want to become a professional photographer, you're gonna need cash-money or credit to buy a bunch of gear. Now because some folks get free gear, that will increase the number of professional photographers, and push out others - so you end up with an oversupply of professional photographers. Thats a market distortion also !

So there is an over supply of photographers.

If Toyota and Hyundai were giving away free vans for couriers, there too would be an oversupply of couriers. Every courier driver and wanna be driver would be lining up to get a free van. Then anybody who bought a Volkswagen Kombi, has to make the payments on the loan, plus struggle to get work because of all the guys with free vans have saturated the job market.

So Canon and Nikon are carefully controlling market saturation with the sponsorship program. Its a great advertisement yes, plus they can carefully watch the professional market, and increase the number of sponsored photographers, to make it unviable for non-sponsored photographers. A very clever way to manipulate the industry.

So the sponsorship program is putting wannabe photographers out of the industry - period !
09-19-2014, 05:35 AM   #338
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,609
These photographers that are sponsored may not be traditionally commercial photographers. They may not do weddings, events or sports, they may not do fashion for magazines, or do advertising, etc. They create art for arts sake. And that is, usually, not financially viable. In turn they do advertising for these brands, to appeal to all those hobbyists who too are not interested in doing commercial photography. If these people would not get sponsored, they wouldn't be able to create their art or would have to do it as hobbyists, next to their actual day job.


Actual commercial photographers, I think, will just pick the gear that works best for them for the current assignment, or their type of photography. They need to earn money with it, and time is money, so using something that gives them poorer results and costs them time won't benefit them, even if they get the gear at a lower price/free.


As long as there are proper disclaimers I have no problem whatsoever with this practice, and I'm glad for those who do get the gig.

09-19-2014, 05:51 AM   #339
Senior Member




Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 121
OP...Innovative?

Pentax should come out with a 28 mp FF rangefinder Leica knockoff for $2500. Nothing out there to compete with Leica.

I just bought a K3 and am very happy with it. Was leaning to a Fuji XT1 but decided to sick with DSLR for sports. (I already have numerous Fuji XE1's.) Don't know what the K3 can use other than an organic sensor possibly like Fuji proposes. If not, the current sensor is excellent.

I wish there was a FF 6mp affordable ($2500 to $3000) digital back for my Hassy SWC, but that may be outside of Pentax's scope. There is not a lot I am lacking with my photo gear, so that is all that is on my want list. I already shoot Leica's but they are so expensive to wreck I don't use them as much as I want to. On my last project I only used the Leicas for 15% of the shoot. But it was a good call on my part. The Fuji gear got wrecked. I use my Fuji's as disposables and buy them used so it is not a big deal to me.
09-19-2014, 06:16 AM   #340
Lens Buying Addict
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 19,498
QuoteOriginally posted by kadajawi Quote
n any case, I do think Pentax should spend some money for retail presence, and to sales people for selling a Pentax. They need to sell cameras, after all. If anything it is Canon and Nikon who don't have to do it. No shop can afford not to offer their cameras, and people will buy them anyway, unless the sales personal is trying to talk them out of it.
Clearly you aren't familiar with the B&M retail distribution channel in the USA.
09-20-2014, 07:00 AM   #341
Veteran Member
zoolander's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Brisbane
Photos: Albums
Posts: 334
QuoteOriginally posted by kadajawi Quote
These photographers that are sponsored may not be traditionally commercial photographers. They may not do weddings, events or sports, they may not do fashion for magazines, or do advertising, etc. They create art for arts sake. And that is, usually, not financially viable. In turn they do advertising for these brands, to appeal to all those hobbyists who too are not interested in doing commercial photography. If these people would not get sponsored, they wouldn't be able to create their art or would have to do it as hobbyists, next to their actual day job.


Actual commercial photographers, I think, will just pick the gear that works best for them for the current assignment, or their type of photography. They need to earn money with it, and time is money, so using something that gives them poorer results and costs them time won't benefit them, even if they get the gear at a lower price/free.


As long as there are proper disclaimers I have no problem whatsoever with this practice, and I'm glad for those who do get the gig
What I have been told is that Canon and Nikon aren't so discriminating. Sporting events such as tennis and football games are covered almost entirely by sponsored photographers. Go to these events and ask the photographers if they are sponsored, about 95-99% are sponsored. Even photojournalists are sponsored. This gives the brands the greatest exposure in front of crowds and television viewing audiences. Canon and Nikon are about making money and gaining greater exposure .........and not supporting the arts. The Canikon sponsorship programs are huge, and run ONLY for commercial gain - to which their consumers are subsidizing.

I'll say it again, sponsorship inflates the market of photographers causing an over supply. Sponsored photographers can also price jobs at a lower rate, and get the jobs against guys/girls who have to charge higher to cover the overheads of their equipment.

If you want to be in business, you need to buy your own tools. The risk is all on you. The sponsorship programs are to huge and distort the market in various ways. But this is what you get when you have companies running a pseudo socialist system for their marketing practices.

If you want to become a doctor, you need to borrow hundreds and thousands of dollars to get the medical degree.

---------- Post added 09-21-14 at 12:22 AM ----------

What Pentax should do:

Like I said before:
They're overhauling the lineup and upgrading to 20mp sensors which will make them more competitive. The K-S1 is a very good concept, with the mode dial on the back which lowers the profile of the body. If they could lower the profile of the pentaprism and popup flash, that would work better too. The line will look sleeker and be more user friendly. No need for tilty-flippy screen, I've had one and I rarely used it.

I said before that they need to upgrade the lenses to HD coatings, and the following day I watched the interview with the Ricoh Pentax guys saying that this will happen stage by stage. Lenses like the DA* lenses need to get a restyle, and overhaul to prevent the SDM issues, either switching to ring motors or redesigning the clutch mechanism, or having a push/pull manual focus override. Sigma and Tamron to a lessor extent have restyled their lenses and are looking very sleek and futuristic, and thats the way Pentax ought to go also. Pentax needs to add USB connectivity to its lenses and flashes, so that they can be adjusted by the users, and to update firmware.

Last edited by zoolander; 09-20-2014 at 07:07 AM.
09-20-2014, 09:12 AM   #342
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,609
@monochrome: I guess I'm not the only one... just look at Pentax.


Ok, if it is those type of photographers that are sponsored, I agree, it shouldn't happen. Though I wonder why, really. Would a sports photographer in a 100 years pick a Pentax? It's just not suitable for that sort of photography. It's Canon, Nikon, and perhaps Sony. The Samsung NX-1 seems to have the speed for that, too, but we'll have to see.


The K-S1 is an interesting concept, yes, but one that hasn't been thought through. They want to appeal to an audience that is coming from the smartphone generation? Why is the camera so dated, then? Where's the video functionality? Where's the app support? APIs? It's grandpa's camera in a fancy new dress. The NX-1 however, that's a through and through modern camera. It has modern components and a modern looking interface. Even if the exterior isn't that fancy.


As for tilty-flippy screens... I don't have one, but always wish for one. it's nearly impossible to manually focus using the LCD, unless I look at it straight. That's very limiting. And I can't always get the angles I want to get.
09-20-2014, 10:06 AM   #343
Lens Buying Addict
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 19,498
QuoteOriginally posted by zoolander Quote
enses like the DA* lenses need to get a restyle, and overhaul to prevent the SDM issues, either switching to ring motors or redesigning the clutch mechanism, or having a push/pull manual focus override
A reliable poster here says it is the HD D-FA* 70~200/2.8 ED AL (IF) SDM and has a new SDM altogether. DK how they plan to make that known. If it is HD one would assume the styling will resemble the HD DA Limited lenses.
09-20-2014, 10:40 AM   #344
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,161
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
A reliable poster here says it is the HD D-FA* 70~200/2.8 ED AL (IF) SDM and has a new SDM altogether. DK how they plan to make that known. If it is HD one would assume the styling will resemble the HD DA Limited lenses.
Wells the magnet motor drive patent we saw (about the time DC was introduced).
09-20-2014, 10:57 AM   #345
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,615
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
A reliable poster here says it is the HD D-FA* 70~200/2.8 ED AL (IF) SDM and has a new SDM altogether.
With all due respect to the "reliable poster",
I have my doubts about that claimed designation (on an unmarked hulk).

Pentax had the good sense to avoid the tainted "SDM" monicker in the new 645 wide zoom,
and aren't they dropping their beloved asterisk that drives the search engines wild (pun intended)?
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
645z, ad, camera, cameras, canon, display, dslr, evf, features, ff, film, full-frame, glass, lens, lenses, market, mirror, mirrorless, money, nikon, pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors, results, sensor, time, value, vs
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
This is what Pentax should do Rekusu Pentax Medium Format 19 01-12-2015 01:10 AM
What should I do? kodai84 Photographic Industry and Professionals 4 01-05-2014 08:49 AM
Focusing on Pentax K-Mount only - Or what should I do with my M42s antipattern Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 5 01-30-2013 10:26 AM
What Should I Do? tabl10s Pentax K-5 8 10-16-2012 03:55 AM
what Pentax should do nathancombs Pentax DSLR Discussion 12 07-06-2007 01:39 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:57 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top