[RonHendriks1966]

You've made that up.
The official reason for making the blue K-01 is continued customer demand (in the home market).

+1

Well, when you've got shipping containers full of K-01's, REJECTED from across the globe. They unpacked those K-01's and set about rebodying them. I guess someone had a bright idea of turning it into the Smurf model, and selling and marketing it to the Anime hipsters in Japan. The Japanese market is a very unique market.

This is BS! The body's of the yellow and Black where Black and then there was the Silver and Black version. So only the White and Black Panda could be turned into the smurf because of the White body.

So if you make things up, at least get your basic information straight to pass the lie detection test.

[Kunzite]

that's a HUGE mistake, even pointed in that way...
I really doubt that anyone from Nikon wants to have advertise images, taken with Sony or Canon...

I see the problem - you (and a few others) don't understand what's actually being advertised - it's the product from the image, not the image itself, nor Ricoh Imaging's capabilities as an advertising agency (which they're not). So it doesn't really matter with what brand they took that product image, and I'd guess very few cares - nobody at all, except some people looking at reasons to complain about.

OTOH, if they published images taken with other cameras while pretending they're taken with a Pentax, images meant to showcase the camera's capabilities... Huawei did something like that (but unlike Ron, their customers got over it).
Wait, Nikon did that too: Oops: Nikon Uses Stolen Canon 5D Mark II Footage for D800 Promo Video Once again, their customers got over it.
Wait, Sony did it too: Sony camera ad features competitor?s shot | Adweek And... yep, nobody's talking about it (anymore).

[RonHendriks1966]

Well, when you've got shipping containers full of K-01's, REJECTED from across the globe.

In a standard container you can fit 13.500 boxes of K-01. So not many of them have really shipped around the world, since the biggest part of sales was for Japan. If I make an estimation, maybe one container went to the US and maybe two of them went to Europe. Another one for the rest of Asia. And then probably it's all done.

[photoptimist]

The existence of "retro" styling is proof that there are no "facts" when it comes to design. The funny thing is that all those old cameras were designed under huge engineering constraints of having to hold rolls of film, moved with mechanical winders, mechanical controls, and the manufacturing technologies of that era. Retro is horrible from a human-factor point of view but will be popular for a little while (and then rejected) just because that's how styling works.

Unlike the laws of physics, styles change because people change. If anything, the socio-economic role of fashion demands that tomorrow's consumer products must look different from today's so people can show off the fact that they can afford the latest and most expensive stuff. Instead of converging to an objectively optimized "best possible design" you see the designs of cameras, cars, clothing etc. diverging and oscillating in color, shape, features, materials, etc. One year, everything is black, then it's brushed steel, then it's titanium, then it's carbon fiber, then it's saturated color , then it's back to retro black, then ......


Personally, I like the look of the K-01 over most Leicas (the smaller metal Leicas look like a child's drawing of a camera wrought in anodized aluminum and the bigger black ones look like someone attached a pressure hose to the lens mount and inflated the camera). What the Leicas have going for them isn't some objective uber-optimized best possible objective design but that red dot that says "I can afford Leica".

[biz-engineer]

Back to the topic of this thread. Given that DPR seems to have a full chapter about drones and that Ricoh said that they'd now focus on visual revolution, it could be that Ricoh are preparing a flying Pentax mirrorless who knows...?

[D1N0]

A flying version of the Theta more likely The Theta I (for Icarus)

[panonski]

Wait, Nikon did that too: Oops: Nikon Uses Stolen Canon 5D Mark II Footage for D800 Promo Video Once again, their customers got over it
Wait, Sony did it too: Sony camera ad features competitor?s shot | Adweek And... yep, nobody's talking about it (anymore).

so,
you posted articles with obviuos negative conotations to such marketing practice.
...
in my world, it's called autogol :-D

[reh321]

I don't think about anything you've claimed .........because ............ opinions of aesthetics is a science, and not some random subjective matter. If you actually have the claimed educational level you would recognize this.

We are not arguing about one statement ......you are arguing about the statement I made ......and might I add, poorly !

Okay, I'm dealing with facts here:

Here's why - The Pentax K-01 was released into the market place. The K-01 was designed by a famous Industrial Designer. The design was heavily criticised. Sales were poor. The camera was heavily discounted and deleted from production. The End !

The Canon EOS M was released. Designed in house. It had no EVF (Like the K-01). The autofocus performance was poor with both M lenses and adapted EF lenses. The autofocus performance was heavily criticised. Customers expected ultra fast AF in a compact mirrorless body. Canon disabled or poorly implemented the autofocus so as not to endanger its DSLR business. Sales were poor. The camera was heavily discounted and deleted. The End ......but not totally. The EOS M 2 came out only in Asia. EOS M 5 might actually be the first acceptable incarnation, yet it still falls heavily short of the performance of the Sony A6000 and up.

Those are pretty much so the facts of two mirrorless cameras that have flopped.

The Pentax K-01 was a flop because it was an unattractive camera ....FACT!

I don't follow your "logic".
Pentax K-01 failed. Canon EOS-M failed. Therefore K-01 failed because it is ugly.
Huh?
Maybe both failed because of lacking EVF.

It is really way too early to reach any conclusions about the Canon EOS-M5, because it is just now getting into the distribution channels. I am hearing some good things about it, but I know nothing about sales.

[Kunzite]

so,
you posted articles with obviuos negative conotations to such marketing practice.
...
in my world, it's called autogol :-D

I clearly made the differentiation between a "who cares" happening and a scenario that's really dishonest and people should rightfully get upset. This was actually my point.
Guess what's missing from that quote... yep, exactly where I'm making this differentiation. That's a bit dishonest as well, don't you think?
In other words: nice try, but you lost.

[Rondec]

so,
you posted articles with obviuos negative conotations to such marketing practice.
...
in my world, it's called autogol :-D

I just think it is/was a tempest in a teapot. You hire someone to take images of your product and hopefully they strip out the exif where it is unclear what camera the images are taken with, but in the end it doesn't really matter. We know that there are fewer agencies that use Pentax than probably Canon and Nikon, but so what?

I can't imagine that there is anyone out there who would buy or not buy gear based on what cameras were used to shoot the advertising images for it.

[RonHendriks1966]

I just think it is/was a tempest in a teapot. You hire someone to take images of your product and hopefully they strip out the exif where it is unclear what camera the images are taken with, but in the end it doesn't really matter. We know that there are fewer agencies that use Pentax than probably Canon and Nikon, but so what?

I can't imagine that there is anyone out there who would buy or not buy gear based on what cameras were used to shoot the advertising images for it.

Maybe it is better that people buy camera's that are being used. Why wouldn't they?

[Kunzite]

Better in which way? As in "fewer people buying Pentax"?
Still don't get it? Nobody cares about that.

[Rondec]

Maybe it is better that people buy camera's that are being used. Why wouldn't they?

Only fanboys on forums research what cameras are being used for product photography. Maybe it can be used for troll bait in some forum thread, but if my dad was interested in a new camera and I told him, "You know many of the images on the Ricoh website were taking with a D600," it wouldn't make a bit of difference to him.

People buy cameras based on reviews, on friends advice, on lenses to which they might have access, and certainly price -- a whole bunch of things -- but cameras used for product photography ain't one of them.

[asahi man]

In the 1960-1970 most Leica promotion pictures were made with Hasselblad.

[Zygonyx]

C'mon, after such transgressive behaviours, weren't the concerned presidents impeached ?