[monochrome]

Yes yet my question was more why 'they' thought the value of their stock was going to decline? What precipitated the brief fall?

I think it due to some shareholders getting fearful and deciding to sell. At least that is what both left and right leaning news sites that I've seen have reported. Even if some computer model determined it was best to sell, it was due to the computer model determining people were or were soon going to freak out and were going to sell their shares themselves. Or no?

On the other side, those who figured it was a great time to buy staged a surge soon after since they realized the bottom of the bag didn't fall out.. or were even anticipating an illogical freak out and poised to take advantage once the price hit a certain value..

The market isn't a fully automated system in that there is still human thought and emotion involved. People are buying and selling based on their interpretation of the data they have and their feel for the future. While I understand the actual exchanges are computer operated, they get their inputs from people. Doesn't that have anything to do with it?

The discussions over film vs.digital, DSLR vs.MILC, formats, processing versus replicating nature - none of this discussions has a final right answer because each of the principals has made a choice that is correct, in the moment.

Likewise, there are several classes of market participants (very few of whom are investors in the classic sense), each of which has its own motivations, objectives and goals, risk appetite and, most importantly, time horizon.

Motivation or objectives is some kind of continuum from seeking dividends with growth to buying low and selling higher simultaneously (arbitrage). Risk appetite is a function of the behavioral stress accepting ever higher short term price declines in in order to achieve correspondingly higher long-term returns (the relationship is not linear) Time horizon ranges from nanoseconds (high-frequency trading) to decades (wealth accumulation).

Understanding that momentary decisions to buy and sell are active decisions, in addition the momentary decision to do nothing (hold a position, in or out) is also an active decision.

All these disparate market participants with their varying momentary active decisions come together in one market, which responds to all of their momentary inputs. When all these momentary inputs are perfectly balanced there is no price change.

For every sell decision, there is a buy decision, and each is a perfect momentary decision, though the claases of investor and their associated objectives often are wildly different on the two sides of the decision. That is why on cable financial news shows it is possible to hear three analysts simultaneously say, "Sell", "Hold" and "Buy" and all three are correct in the context of their objectives and time horizons.

IMO (which is informed by 40 years of experience and observation, but not by actual participation that night) what likely happened with he night of the election was a time horizon imbalance, that is, the sellers who 'started' the cascade had a short time horizon - likely minutes - and their orders overwhelmed any potential buyers (this all occurred in thin 'overnight' markets). Once futures price began hitting standby computer sell prices AI programs took hold and cleared the Hedge Book.

The remarkable lesson is, rational human actors saw the low prices (it was reported Carl Icahn left the Trump party when prices dropped), recognized the value, and entered intentional buy orders. There has subsequently been a convergence of buyers from all classes of investors, including individual investors making individual, personal decisions.

The lesson is - The Market is not a monolith. Rather, it represents, each moment, the aggregated inputs of all the disparatemarket participants, perfectly balanced and responsive to the next moment's inputs. That isn't crazy. It's rational.

---

Last edited by monochrome; 12-10-2016 at 07:00 AM.

[panonski]

Pentax K-01 was one of my first cameras to look for replacement oldie but goldie -Ricoh Gx200.

I do care ( a lot ) about size of cameras, and in many ways I found Bigger is not better, quite opposite is true for most shooting cases.

If you have important client, and just must deliver perfect tack sharp images with much more MP and Dynamic Range, then usual, you can go and shoot with any new bulky camera to satisfie that - other than that - this is just not needed - and pottentialy, bigger bulky camera can get you away from taking pictures. It's a well known, I believe.

So, when I saw IQ from K-01, I wasn't that much imppresed, and I give a chance to Olympus Pen to be my second camera.

My Oly is quite a beast - 1/8000 per sec, 200.000 shutter actuations test, 8 fps rate, Live View mode, X-sync 1/320, Radio flash trigger inside, Tiltable and Touch screen, Built in Pop Up flash ( and it's a good one ) - Sensor and battery from bigger ( and also legendary ) OMD-EM-1, all this and much more packed in small body with interchangeable lens, and microfourthird mount. and that was in 2013
.!
almost 4 years from now.

Poor K-01 had no any chance then.


----

But, once more, I decide to make my gear more heavier with DSLR , and K3 was choosen because of best price for delivered quality ( I was innitially want Omd-Em II, but it came just a few days ago - and Oh, did you see that beast motherf--r ?? ). K3 was not so much bigger then OMD-Em1. so I hit the target, and get it. It's a very good camera, but I don't ennjoy shooting so much anymore, with it.
It's just not convient for all arround camera, but it's very good for bussines

Now, when I have coupled few good lenses, I would love to see Pentax MILC . After all - MILC are future, dumb is everyone who don't get it yet. Not just future - they are here already, and they absolutelly rocks, so far.

Yes, I would definitelly love K-02 ( no matter who will designed it ) and I would love to be on K mount.

I saw some thread on dp review, with post from someone, who said, that would be possible to get smaller camera with K mount, with backward protrusion of lens mount into the bodyitself, and maybe this will happen.

---

PENTAX DO YOU LISTEN HERE ?

If you dont get me new ( AND GOOD ) MILC, I will go away ( again ) to the microfour - it's a capable system, and I want to enjoy shooting - not carrying arround heavy lenses. Camera size must be almost pocketable with pancake,
and must have pop up flash.

[zoolander]

Thats what I'm talking about !

Pentax needs to do this right. A mirrorless with a new mount, plus a K-mount adapter and 8mm filangee distance so you can mount some of those third party lenses like samyangs f/0.95. That adapter should be like the Sony one which has a built in AF motor for screw drive, but naturally without a translucent mirror.

Yes, I would definitelly love K-02 ( no matter who will designed it ) and I would love to be on K mount.

Dobar dan ! Regarding the design, I hope that Marc Newson doesn't get the contract, his K01 caused the cameras demise. I think that I could have designed a better mirrorless camera .....or even a child could have done a better job.

But also I think retro has already been done by Fuji and Olympus, Pentax should keep it modern and not pander to the hipsters. But then again, if retro sells, then I guess it willl help Pentax. But imagine having a retro Pentax mirrorless, and putting on your K-mount lenses with all the varying styles .......it will look out of place. Retro Pentax mirrorless means new mount, and new retro looking lenses. But then again, this rumor might be a hoax. I hope it isn't.

[D1N0]

I think that I could have designed a better mirrorless camera

overestimation. The K-01 is not a bad camera design, it is a different design. It is not on Marc Newson that it failed. It wouldn't have mattered how it looked. The Idea of a mirrorless with DSLR flange distance is half baked. That was a Pentax/Hoya decision. Look at the Sigma SD Quatro. That is a real monstrosity.

[monochrome]

overestimation. The K-01 is not a bad camera design, it is a different design. It is not on Marc Newson that it failed. It wouldn't have mattered how it looked. The Idea of a mirrorless with DSLR flange distance is half baked. That was a Pentax/Hoya decision. Look at the Sigma SD Quatro. That is a real monstrosity.

It is only a half-baked design if the primary objective of mirrorless is the make a thin-bodied camera - the proverbial pack of cigarettes with a beer can attached.

If OTOH the objective is to replace the mechanical aspects of an ILC with electronic 'improvements' while permitting use of esisting lenses owned by the camera buyer then a long flange design is fine. My K-01 is within a mm or two on each dimension of my MESuper. I can make stable platform by holding it near my face with two hands, just like a traditional SLR grip.

But you don't sell new lenses with h a K-01 - and lenses are money. The real failure was not marketing the XS line correctly. The XS lenses square the K-01 circle.

IMO the business decision behind the design decision drove the form of the flat, shiny, hipster plate - and now thin as a form is embedded in MILC design standards. But as we know, in use the ergonomics of APSc and FF MILC's aren't what we thought they would be. Mirrorless just can't overcome the form issues for me.

[D1N0]

The real failure was not marketing the XS line correctly.

XS lenses that intrude further into to body could have made it a success, but then they would have the problem of people trying to mount them on a dslr and breaking their mirror. The lenses would break the K-mount specification.

[Kunzite]

@D1N0 :
Bingo. (speaking about your previous post)
The sad thing is, if it had a red dot and a Leica badge (and support for some Leica full manual mount) its design would've been "excellent", and Marc Newson congratulated for a well done job.

[Class A]

The sad thing is, if it had a red dot and a Leica badge (and support for some Leica full manual mount) its design would've been "excellent", and Marc Newson congratulated for a well done job.

I'm sorry that you apparently cannot distinguish between the elegance of a Leica design and the hideous Fisher-Price aesthetic that Newson imposed on the K-01, or think that people appreciate Leica designs because of the name/badge.

Concerning the "It does not matter how it looks" argument, the forum was brimming with the use of the word "fugly" when the K-01 was introduced. A word that I had never encountered before. I trust you know what it stands for. No one can tell me that a hideous look does not affect the sales of a product.

Concerning the "mirrorless with DSLR flange distance is half baked" argument, I understand the K-01 sold actually rather well after the price had been adjusted, i.e., many customers had no issue with a mirrorless body that was not very thin.

[JPT]

Does the SD Quattro look any better in the promo video? Not really, but I like Taiko drums, so thought this video was cool.

You Tube

You Tube

I think the SD Q body has a kind of brutal charm about it, but it's really strange to hold. It doesn't help that all the recent Sigma lenses are so huge that it feels unstable. And that is is glacially slow to do anything. And that viewfinder and all the buttons seem to have been scattered around the camera totally randomly.

Compared to that the K-01 is pretty normal.

[D1N0]

I'm sorry that you apparently cannot distinguish between the elegance of a Leica design and the hideous Fisher-Price aesthetic that Newson imposed on the K-01, or think that people appreciate Leica designs because of the name/badge.

Leica by Marc Newson and Jony Ive:

[grahame]

Look at the Sigma SD Quatro. That is a real monstrosity.

If they made the EVF pop-up style, the camera will look much better. It is not that bad from top if W/O the protruding EVF.

In fact, i wish K-01 was designed like that: a deeper grip and a EVF-- that is all I want on a revised K-01. if it has a retractable mount, even better!

[Kunzite]

Class A, before feeling sorry for me take a look at the image posted by D1N0.

The K-01 - I've seen it, not only in pictures - is rather different, than bad.

[jcdoss]

XS lenses that intrude further into to body could have made it a success, but then they would have the problem of people trying to mount them on a dslr and breaking their mirror.

Stupid is as stupid does. But I bet most people who go for Pentax aren't like your average Canon user.

[Doundounba]

The lesson is - The Market is not a monolith. Rather, it represents, each moment, the aggregated inputs of all the disparatemarket participants, perfectly balanced and responsive to the next moment's inputs. That isn't crazy. It's rational.

That market behavior is the result of aggregated inputs, sure. That follows from this a "balance" and/or "rationality" is... a belief system, to phrase it generously. Please keep your "lessons" for yourself - I do not need to read this type of indoctrination on a photography forum. Enough already.

[Class A]

Leica by Marc Newson and Jony Ive:

What are you trying to say?

As usual (IMO), the product looks worse when pure star designers have a go at "improving" something. You can tell that some the design is not ergonomic and that there is too much of "creating a look" rather than "form follows function".

However, this questionable project (it has to be commended because it brought a lot of money to a good cause) is not nearly the disaster the K-01 was.

Newson copied Rams for the K-01 design quite a bit and these parts are good, but -- as a star designer with a signature and a reputation to defend -- he always has to throw in gratuitous "design for design's sake" stuff which either looks pretentious, not functionally motivated, or just plain hideous (not in an exclusive manner).