[Rondec]

And I've heard that remark at least 7 years since I started frequenting this site. Actually, these entire discussions have been circulating for eons.. yet we still have them.

Look at the state of affairs.. Now major 3rd parties have said hasta la vista in the past 5 years. That can't be good for growing.

So I don't think they grow too much. Ricoh/Pentax stays niche.. really niche. Almost Hasselblad niche. Actually, I personally wonder if Sigma would like Pentax to fold. One less camera mount out there and one less band of customers asking for lenses in that mount. Yet no one here can, with certainty, state what happens to any of these companies years out.

5 years ago Samsung had 12% of the digital camera market. 12 percent!!!! Today, they've disbanded that division entirely. Gone.

Pentax held 1.62% then. I think, today, they are around 5-6%. So they've grown, but I suspect that growth is largely from absorption of the customers of failed companies and products. It is fish eat fish out there.

That is to say, it hasn't been for revolutionary changes on Ricoh's part. There aren't many to make at this point... the market has matured.

So the question is.. Who stays and who goes? The guy interviewed, in 2013, in this article claimed Nikon would be toast in 2018 Point, shoot, collapse: Why big camera companies are the next BlackBerry | Financial Post So there is and has been a lot of uncertainty in the camera market. Only until the market bottoms out will we see the winners and the losers.

But that doesn't matter to the budding photographer who just wants a 'pro' camera and some 'pro' lenses. They just want a solid working camera that outputs sharp images through lenses that perform reliably at the focal lengths they desire. I'm sure some market consideration can and does take place, but largely I suspect not.. which is why it matters to have a competitive lineup of lenses and cameras in a mature market of lenses and cameras. The consumer today expects instant-now delivery. Pentax seems to go against the grain of that with the old 'When it is ready, it is ready' mentality.

It is also why I think Pentax stays tiny... but doesn't disappear entirely.. so long as they stay on the correct side of the 'conservative' line in a very dynamic setting.

Nikon has been and currently is in trouble. They aren't going away, but despite having awesome sensors and camera bodies, they seem to be having difficulty financially. Olympus would have gone away except for a big infusion of cash from Sony and even so, it is rumored that the camera division doesn't turn a profit and it is the medical division that keeps the whole ship afloat. But who really knows? Odds are that neither of those companies is going away any time soon.

At the same time, Leica seems to be in good shape and not struggling at all. They release their highly priced bodies when they want to and sell very expensive lenses at a very slow clip, but still fast enough to turn a profit. It feels like Pentax is trying to be a little more like them than like Sony/Nikon/Canon.

As to the whole f4 zoom thing, there are plenty of folks who use those lenses, but honestly, I don't really understand the point when I can get the same results shooting with an f2.8 lens on APS-C. I guess they are cheaper and smaller.

[biz-engineer]

This thread is about a DFA50 1.4, how is that related to the collapse of Pentax?

[Franc]

This thread is about a DFA50 1.4, how is that related to the collapse of Pentax?

standard practice at this forum. Start intelligent and end with doom and gloom

[mee]

This thread is about a DFA50 1.4, how is that related to the collapse of Pentax?

In the absence of news we venture.

But, to answer your question, we started discussing the health of camera systems and in regards to the speed of Pentax releasing these new D-FAs.

[Rondec]

This thread is about a DFA50 1.4, how is that related to the collapse of Pentax?

Somehow if Pentax doesn't release this lens till November the company is doomed. Pretty clear, I would say...

[awscreo]

Nikon has been and currently is in trouble. They aren't going away, but despite having awesome sensors and camera bodies, they seem to be having difficulty financially. Olympus would have gone away except for a big infusion of cash from Sony and even so, it is rumored that the camera division doesn't turn a profit and it is the medical division that keeps the whole ship afloat. But who really knows? Odds are that neither of those companies is going away any time soon.

At the same time, Leica seems to be in good shape and not struggling at all. They release their highly priced bodies when they want to and sell very expensive lenses at a very slow clip, but still fast enough to turn a profit. It feels like Pentax is trying to be a little more like them than like Sony/Nikon/Canon.

As to the whole f4 zoom thing, there are plenty of folks who use those lenses, but honestly, I don't really understand the point when I can get the same results shooting with an f2.8 lens on APS-C. I guess they are cheaper and smaller.

Never heard of Sony investing into Olympus. Why would they do that? As far as I remember from the m43 forum, it was speculated that Sony owns a small percentage of Olympus. Not nearly enough to invest into their direct competitor..

[Mistral75]

(...)

5 years ago Samsung had 12% of the digital camera market. 12 percent!!!! Today, they've disbanded that division entirely. Gone.

Pentax held 1.62% then. I think, today, they are around 5-6%. So they've grown, but I suspect that growth is largely from absorption of the customers of failed companies and products. It is fish eat fish out there.

(...)

What's your source for the 1.62% market share of Pentax in 2012 ???

Today they are lower than your 5-6%. Ricoh Imaging had a 1.7% market share outside Japan in calendar year 2016 (market share calculated by dividing the sales of the Ricoh 'Other' division outside Japan by the shipments reported by CIPA). In order to achieve a 5% global market share, they should have achieved a 26% market share in Japan in 2016; in order to achieve a 6% global market share, a 33% market share in Japan.

We can safely assume this is not the case. The quite generous assumption of a 10% share of the Japanese market would grant Ricoh Imaging a 2.8% share of the global market. 15% of the Japanese market would give them 3.5% of the global market and so on.

---------- Post added 04-08-2017 at 09:52 PM ----------

(...)

At the same time, Leica seems to be in good shape and not struggling at all. They release their highly priced bodies when they want to and sell very expensive lenses at a very slow clip, but still fast enough to turn a profit. It feels like Pentax is trying to be a little more like them than like Sony/Nikon/Canon.

(...)

I can imagine that. Leica are twice the size of Ricoh Imaging and turning a very pleasant profit.

[Rondec]

Never heard of Sony investing into Olympus. Why would they do that? As far as I remember from the m43 forum, it was speculated that Sony owns a small percentage of Olympus. Not nearly enough to invest into their direct competitor..

Here's an article that talks a little about it: Sony Sells Half Its Stake in Olympus for Cash, Now No Longer Largest Shareholder. Looks like they sold half their stake in 2015, but still own 5 percent of the company. At the time of the investment they owned 11 percent of the company and gave Olympus 645 million dollars in 2012 for that stake in the company.

[mee]

Somehow if Pentax doesn't release this lens till November the company is doomed. Pretty clear, I would say...

Who said that?

[mee]

What's your source for the 1.62% market share of Pentax in 2012 ???

Today they are lower than your 5-6%. Ricoh Imaging had a 1.7% market share outside Japan in calendar year 2016 (market share calculated by dividing the sales of the Ricoh 'Other' division outside Japan by the shipments reported by CIPA). In order to achieve a 5% global market share, they should have achieved a 26% market share in Japan in 2016; in order to achieve a 6% global market share, a 33% market share in Japan.

We can safely assume this is not the case. The quite generous assumption of a 10% share of the Japanese market would grant Ricoh Imaging a 2.8% share of the global market. 15% of the Japanese market would give them 3.5% of the global market and so on.

Article I read.. link to the pie chart from the article:

[biz-engineer]

standard practice at this forum. Start intelligent and end with doom and gloom

But, to answer your question, we started discussing the health of camera systems and in regards to the speed of Pentax releasing these new D-FAs.

Somehow if Pentax doesn't release this lens till November the company is doomed. Pretty clear, I would say...

Never heard of Sony investing into Olympus. Why would they do that? As far as I remember from the m43 forum, it was speculated that Sony owns a small percentage of Olympus. Not nearly enough to invest into their direct competitor..

What's your source for the 1.62% market share of Pentax in 2012 ???

Article I read.. link to the pie chart from the article:

I'm looking for reliable market data, interesting stuff out there in the internet but none of the figures are the same.
Should start a new market / analysis thread. Plse share your sources.

[Pål Jensen]

Those data are for the digital camera marked. Pentax is only participating in a small part of it. DSLR's primarily....

[Kunzite]

Yes, that much should've been obvious after a fist glance - Casio? Vivitar? And what's with Fuji/Olympus/Panasonic/Samsung/Sony numbers?
Yet somehow those figures were reiterated over and over again as somehow relevant for the DSLR market.

[Rondec]

Who said that?

It is the feeling you get after reading through a thread like this.

It begins with excitement over a new lens and ends with a large amount of doom and gloom over all the stuff that Pentax hasn't done yet.

[pres589]

If that chart is correct, were Casio and Vivitar to join forces, Pentax is DOOOOOMED!

Did that Ron guy help you make that graphic?