[RonHendriks1966]

K-3 - 24-36 month product cycle. 645Z 48-60 month product cycle. Mid-range 18-30 month product cycle. Q-x - 12-18 month product cycle. X-Sx product cycle at the shorter end - I believe each model is a one-off with a single planned production run.

Lenses - 10-year product life with several production runs, possibly with a slight update each new run. Expect lens prices to be discouragingly high. If you think MAP pricing caused a storm, wait until the HD D-FA Pro 1:2.8 70~210mm DC (IF) is released.

That sounds about right. In the current market cameramodels will go longer in their salescycle then we had for just two years ago. I don't think that Rocoh Imaging is organized with single production runs. I think they either makes batches or run a productionline for a model.

[Aristophanes]

I consider the K-S1 an intermediate DSLR. It is a compromise between a fully integrated mobile device and a DSLR. It has the potential for being an excellent video device but is missing a few key aspect (articulating LCD). Size is excellent. Design is nicely backwards compatible. Sensor and ISO performance looks outstanding. But the oddball interface stuff looks like a halfhearted move towards integration, almost panicky in its in-house attempt to play "catch-up".

[Mr Spocko]

The point is, this camera is not aimed at "serious shooters." It's aimed at casual shooters who want some SLR capability with personality. This kind of consumer tends to never buy anything other than the kit lens. Wise decision or not, this explains the high launch price, since the margins need to be made up somewhere. And "cute" certainly isn't the kiss of death for males in the Japanese market, who are much less sexist when it comes to designs like this.

Sniff all you want, but you (a presumably male shooter who wants a big, clunky, expensive, and black feature laden camera) simply are not the target demo for this model. Believe it or not, the "serious shooter" market is vanishingly small compared to the casual market. Do you really think Canon, for example, makes more money selling 5DIIIs than they do their crap entry level bodies lining the shelves at Best Buy and the like?

Ricoh has a camera for you, and it's called the K-3. Should BMW stop making Mini Coopers (a cute and quirky but high quality auto with decent but not top-end performance), since they have several more "serious" models that appeal to Western men interested in horsepower? Of course not. Should VW stop making Beatles since they also have several Audi sports models? Of course not - they are two of the most popular models made by their respective manufacturers.

I think you've missed the point
Canon's entry models might not be that interesting but they are pretty cheap and drag people into the "net" as such and with a big system on offer the ones that do move up to more expensive bodies or buying lenses and other bits they're much more likely to get them to buy further into the Canon system it's worked wonders for them for the last 10 years, the potential money making from this is pretty big not everyone just goes out first go to bag a 5dMkIII and a ton of L lenses. Thus the entry market is important for all makers


Looking back it's never worked doing oddball designs, Pentax tried the K-01 (epic fail) They had the "transformer styled" K-30 which again didn't do anything for the brand. Olympus has done strange designs in the past too (with the same result) Sony made a specific "girlie type" entry DSLR years ago (A230 in a variety of colours etc but clearly aimed at females mostly) and it did worse than their A200 (normal looking DSLR) by a big margin


In short it doesn't work full stop. When you "bling up" a camera like this it instantly puts off quite a few buyers, and it's not a sexist thing I'd wager over 50% of camera buyers (at least DSLR buyers) are male probably quite a bit over that number. The moment you start making a camera with "girlie/bling" overtones or styling you're asking for trouble that's why Canikon don't mess about here at all (sure Nikon do some coloured versions of their entry models but that's it nothing oddball about it) if it worked Canikon would do it


There are other considerations from an ergonomics points of view the K-S1 doesn't look convincing to me, maybe it's not as bad in the hand but that's another point to make and it's a serious one. Lastly the launch price is far from super budget either so really it's not we want to dance on the grave of a just released camera, rather it's just a slow moving train crash with no hope of avoiding the obvious.


You don't have to be an expert in marketing to see how the industry works

[RonHendriks1966]

I consider the K-S1 an intermediate DSLR. It is a compromise between a fully integrated mobile device and a DSLR. It has the potential for being an excellent video device but is missing a few key aspect (articulating LCD). Size is excellent. Design is nicely backwards compatible. Sensor and ISO performance looks outstanding. But the oddball interface stuff looks like a halfhearted move towards integration, almost panicky in its in-house attempt to play "catch-up".

No MIC in or headphone out, so not so great for video. For that purpose they could have left out the mirror (making the camera thinner) and put in the EVF in the place of the OVF.

[Aristophanes]

No MIC in or headphone out, so not so great for video. For that purpose they could have left out the mirror (making the camera thinner) and put in the EVF in the place of the OVF.

I think the Pentax literature is quite clear on the K-mount being a optical mount through and through. It is central to both marketing and engineering.

I agree wight he other video oversights.

[RonHendriks1966]

I think the Pentax literature is quite clear on the K-mount being a optical mount through and through. It is central to both marketing and engineering.

True, but doing things half way doesn't work. If it's aimt at video you don't need the led's (they could be videolight, but are not). If you do stills, who ever needs the led's.

[Stavri]

I just thought of another use for grip Led: As eye color enhancing lights. You want you Iris to appear greenish or blue in hue, select the appropriate color and take the selfie. (no need to wear colored contacts anymore)

---

Last edited by Stavri; 10-04-2014 at 10:13 AM.

[thibs]

Looking back it's never worked doing oddball designs, Pentax tried the K-01 (epic fail) They had the "transformer styled" K-30 which again didn't do anything for the brand. Olympus has done strange designs in the past too (with the same result) Sony made a specific "girlie type" entry DSLR years ago (A230 in a variety of colours etc but clearly aimed at females mostly) and it did worse than their A200 (normal looking DSLR) by a big margin


In short it doesn't work full stop. When you "bling up" a camera like this it instantly puts off quite a few buyers, and it's not a sexist thing I'd wager over 50% of camera buyers (at least DSLR buyers) are male probably quite a bit over that number. The moment you start making a camera with "girlie/bling" overtones or styling you're asking for trouble that's why Canikon don't mess about here at all (sure Nikon do some coloured versions of their entry models but that's it nothing oddball about it) if it worked Canikon would do it

I'm not sure this is that simple.
Wha you say is true but there's another side to this coin. Of course those "bling up" models have to sell OKish not be a complete disaster.
But even if they sell quite less: as long as the brand didn't lose money or not too much AND the one buying it or customers who wouldn't have bought into a classic design, it is a win.
Those customers might go up the ladder with a classic higher end cam later. But the are trapped in the net. That's the whole point of those models IMO.

[RonHendriks1966]

I just thought of another use for grip Led: As eye color enhancing lights. You want you Iris to appear greenish or blue in hue, select the appropriate color and take the selfie. (no need to wear colored contacts anymore)

No no no.....

[Stavri]

No no no.....

Is that shot with the DA 35mm f2.8 macro? Marvelous Pentax colors on the lens too..

[monochrome]

Since the Amigos were introduced in 2000

Princesses.

FA31 - 2001 ~ still in production*
FA77 - 1999 ~ still in production*
FA43 - 1997 ~ still in production*

* Rumored to be running down existing stock and not actually produced in two-ish years.

[Stavri]

Prinicesses.

FA31 - 2001 ~ still in production*
FA77 - 1999 ~ still in production*
FA43 - 1997 ~ still in production*

* Rumored to be running down existing stock and not actually produced in two-ish years.

That's not what Asahi Man claims

[Clothears]

In short it doesn't work full stop. When you "bling up" a camera like this it instantly puts off quite a few buyers, ...

As far as I'm concerned, there's quite a lot of bling on DSLRs and has been for some time. In that category I include video, articulated screens, scene modes, wi-fi, and special effects like sepia tones. There are too many damn buttons, controls, and menu settings on these things. Net result is, the cops come up to me and ask whether I got a shot of the bank robbers, and my response is "No, they drove off before I finished adjusting the camera."

And lest you think I jest, I spent five weeks on safari in Kenya in 1975, only to fail to get a shot of a leopard on the *one* occasion we saw one, because of the time it took to change the screw-thread lens on my Pentax (from 50mm to a tele). All the pix I did take, however, were correctly exposed as I had one of the first Pentax models that, for a given aperture, chose the shutter speed for you.

My needs are simple: I want control over whether it's shutter or aperture priority, or perhaps fully auto if I'm feeling lazy, whatever ISO values correspond to the old ASA 25/100/400 values, and a couple of lenses that focus sharply and are as free of aberrations as possible. Everything else is superfluous. I'm not even sure I want live view. Just give me the exposure values in the v/f and a focus indication.

It should be reasonably lightweight. And as an old Kodachrome 2 user, it'll probably need to be around 20-24 mpix APS-C. So I have some interest in the K-S1.

Trouble is, just because processors now have trillions of trannies, the marketing boys want to use them.

[RonHendriks1966]

Prinicesses.

FA31 - 2001 ~ still in production*
FA77 - 1999 ~ still in production*
FA43 - 1997 ~ still in production*

* Rumored to be running down existing stock and not actually produced in two-ish years.

There is plenty of stock overhere. Just the 43mm is hard to get. You don't keep selling them forever. There comes a point where the market absorbed a lens like these and you sell just a few of them. Certainly in a market where less dslr's are being used in the future. I see lots of lenses for sale in k-mount and not to many buyers.

[monochrome]

That's not what Asahi Man claims

Actually (IIRC) that is precisely what he claims, along with the FA50/1.4 (03/2014, in the thread about the fake marketing brochure - ". . . . . produced to the same end with the fa50 1,4"). That's the easy one - I didn't keep going backward.