[biz-engineer]

Which is probably why we see 1800 dollar 36MP sensored FF bodies

Product pricing isn't based on cost. Price is defined as what customers are willing to pay for a product. $1800 is a price defined to achieve a certain overall profit, base of study what what the customers are willing to pay and the optimal number of sales to maximize profit. There is already a Pentax MF, and so, the Pentax K1 was priced to fit in between apsc and MF, considering there is not enough market potential to make and maintain two full frame product lines.

it doesn't give anyone out of the very small ring of inside knowledge any warm fuzzies to just see a 3d printed D-FA tube and word about coming soon. For months...

A lot of pentax users are excited by new product announcements and don't buy. The most visible of this phenomena being with the Fuji GFX50: when this camera was announced, there was so much excitement from everyone down to the $500 budget photographer who will never buy it, but, he eventually will get to know the brand and buy an XE. But, making the spending on a full development of a MF camera to trigger some sales of cheapo low margin camera is not very cost effective. Among the many excited by the cool GFX50, how many will actually buy it...?

So, now, Ricoh are very smart, they pre-announce a DFA50 1.4 to test the market reaction, how many people are interested etc. With the situation that they have (very low market share), they are managing very well. They don't have money to waste and they want to make products that don't sell.

We live in an information age, they say, where many people are used to instant gratification and timely news/information. Ricoh (and most of the camera manufacturers) still play the game by the old rules and expect the customer base to adapt to them.

Ricoh do products to avoid big adaption from customers: that includes back compatibility of the K mount, allow customers to use their existing lenses with new camera bodies having a better sensor.
If Ricoh wanted customers to adapt, they'd make a mirrorless camera with unusable K mount lenses to force customers to renew they lenses. A new mount would enable new features, an you'd have to buy everything new from scratch.

---

Last edited by biz-engineer; 04-09-2017 at 11:19 PM.

[photoptimist]

Yes this makes sense and seems to describe Pentax pretty well.. Nikon (and Sony and Canon for that matter) are in a precarious position in that regard as they are in direct competition with each other. As a result, they tend to leapfrog each other with cutting edge products. That means more costs involved. While Pentax seems to be a generation or two behind, using proven sensors and technology years after release. That probably means much less costs involved for them.

Which is probably why we see 1800 dollar 36MP sensored FF bodies, while Nikon's similar body is still a thousand dollars more (and at once double the price) compared to the K-1.

The issue is compounded for Nikon, in particular, considering they're a camera+optics company. There is no plan B product line. So they have to keep the train moving at or very near the edge of technology. Of course, with them having such a large userbase, this is easier than keeping momentum for such a tiny player such as Pentax. But, as you know, it also means Ricoh doesn't tank if Pentax tanks.

That is a little scary for the enduser though.. I'd much rather know the company, my pricey camera products come from, is in a position where they have to continually cater to me to stay afloat. With Ricoh, they could just up and leave Pentax at any moment, at least in this regard... since it isn't their main source of revenue. So there is also a factor, for the buyer, in knowing the brand is loyal themselves to their brand.

Plus using this business plan also means 3rd parties aren't going to be too warm to supporting your product lines as there will be automatically fewer users. And these 3rd parties want to see a larger userbase for a larger potential customer base themselves.

With the slowness of releases and the silence from Ricoh Imaging corporate, it doesn't give anyone out of the very small ring of inside knowledge any warm fuzzies to just see a 3d printed D-FA tube and word about coming soon. For months...

We live in an information age, they say, where many people are used to instant gratification and timely news/information. Ricoh (and most of the camera manufacturers) still play the game by the old rules and expect the customer base to adapt to them. Not sure how that is going to work... and perhaps a reason for some of the groaning online?

You raise some good points about consumers and 3rd parties being able to have more confidence that Nikon isn't going anywhere because they have no where to go. But Nikon is actually in a much worse situation than Ricoh/Pentax.

The notion of "momentum" only works in growth markets. In stagnant or declining markets such as ILCs, all those used (and now unused) pieces of Nikon equipment compete directly with Nikon's new stuff. Worse, for Nikon, are the third parties like Sigma and Tamron which prevent Nikon from making too much profit on lenses. Nikon's size is now a liability not an asset. Nikon is forced to develop cutting-edge products to keep up with Canon and to out-compete all that used Nikon stuff but cannot charge a premium price to pay for all that R&D because of the third party lens makers. The situation is actually a recipe for Nikon's death.

As far as the "information age" is concerned, yes, consumers want news & instant gratification but ever since Osborne Computer went bankrupt in 1983 after revealing too much about the next version of their computer, technology companies have learned to avoid revealing new product information unless they are entering a new market. Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc. don't publish the specs of their upcoming products and Pentax would be a fool to do so, too. Worse, when Ricoh did announce that the 50/1.4 was coming and even showed a mock-up of the new lens, a lot of people here jumped down their throat for not having a product ready for shipping.

[clackers]

As far as the "information age" is concerned, yes, consumers want news & instant gratification but ever since Osborne Computer went bankrupt in 1983 after revealing too much about the next version of their computer, technology companies have learned to avoid revealing new product information unless they are entering a new market. Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc. don't publish the specs of their upcoming products and Pentax would be a fool to do so, too. Worse, when Ricoh did announce that the 50/1.4 was coming and even showed a mock-up of the new lens, a lot of people here jumped down their throat for not having a product ready for shipping.

Even vague roadmaps can be used as negative rather than positive publicity.

Chuck Westfall of Canon USA simply refused to comment on future products or plans. Whatever you say can be used against you!

[Rondec]

Lenses are lenses and a 50 f1.4 isn't going to break the internet on its release, even if it is a really nice lens. I think secrecy makes more sense with camera bodies where hopefully there are new features that you don't want to get upstaged.

The biggest negatives about releasing information early is that it gives time for people to stew about the negatives of the lens -- big size, high price, and delayed release (even though we don't actually know a price) -- long before the image quality is available to see. My impression is that once these lenses hit the street and people start generating nice images with them, a lot of the negativity goes away. It certainly was that way the DFA 70-200.

I think the perspective of "That's a really nice lens that I'm going to have to save up for," is different from "I bet that lens won't be worth what they're going to charge for it."

But to bring it full circle, if you are happy with your Takumar 50mm or FA 50 or DA 50 or DA 55, then you don't need to get this lens. But I imagine when images are finally released taken with it, there will be a group of photographers that start salivating for it.

[Na Horuk]

So is this lens a replacement for the FA 50mm f1.4, or for the DA* 55mm f1.4?

[Pål Jensen]

Product pricing isn't based on cost. .

Yes it is. There are two exceptions. 1) Your product is so unique or you brand is so valuable that you can charge premium. 2) You cannot sell your product at a profit and you have to clear inventory.

[Rondec]

So is this lens a replacement for the FA 50mm f1.4, or for the DA* 55mm f1.4?

I wouldn't say so. It is a new lens with probably a lot high specs than those lenses. But it does cover roughly the same focal length and if you have one of those lenses and are happy with the performance then you won't need this (and it will be a lot bigger than those lenses too).

[mecrox]

You raise some good points about consumers and 3rd parties being able to have more confidence that Nikon isn't going anywhere because they have no where to go. But Nikon is actually in a much worse situation than Ricoh/Pentax.

The notion of "momentum" only works in growth markets. In stagnant or declining markets such as ILCs, all those used (and now unused) pieces of Nikon equipment compete directly with Nikon's new stuff. Worse, for Nikon, are the third parties like Sigma and Tamron which prevent Nikon from making too much profit on lenses. Nikon's size is now a liability not an asset. Nikon is forced to develop cutting-edge products to keep up with Canon and to out-compete all that used Nikon stuff but cannot charge a premium price to pay for all that R&D because of the third party lens makers. The situation is actually a recipe for Nikon's death.

As far as the "information age" is concerned, yes, consumers want news & instant gratification but ever since Osborne Computer went bankrupt in 1983 after revealing too much about the next version of their computer, technology companies have learned to avoid revealing new product information unless they are entering a new market. Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc. don't publish the specs of their upcoming products and Pentax would be a fool to do so, too. Worse, when Ricoh did announce that the 50/1.4 was coming and even showed a mock-up of the new lens, a lot of people here jumped down their throat for not having a product ready for shipping.

Great post but it's hard to see why people get so fussed about all this stuff. Buy what you enjoy and which meets your requirements. Chances are it will fall to pieces in 3-5 years anyway given the build quality of most modern cameras. Only a very few people have enough expensive lenses to lock them into a brand. And if purchased secondhand, the financial loss on equipment won't be that great anyway.

People like to go on about how poor old Pentax doesn't have any money. You'd think the Chairman of Ricoh is so hard up he has dress from a charity store and moonlight as a children's entertainer just to put food on the table. In reality Ricoh are a multi-billion corporation and their investment strategy is a choice, not a necessity. This strategy seems to have brought us about one new lens a year, minimal marketing in many places, and a falling market share now down to 2-3 per cent probably. Nikon for all their foibles still have a share ten times greater and their camera division is profitable. Canon and Fuji don't seem to do so badly either. People have been saying that Canon are for the chop for years, terrible strategy, bound to fail, but last year Canon did so badly they managed to account for half of all cameras made and sold. Er ... .There may well be a risk of Nikon exiting the market in some fashion, but there is just as much risk that Ricoh will suddenly change its strategy and dump cameras. If Ricoh did that, their stock price would probably increase not decrease. A temptation, isn't it.

So, imho, buy whatever you want, shoot the heck out of it for 3-4 years if it lasts that long, then move on. Pentax are perfectly viable today so why worry that in four years' time Ricoh may be investing the money in Hello Kitty alarm clocks instead. You may "lose" a few bob if that is how you want to look at it but your "loss" will have given you countless hours of pure pleasure. A rather sad way to look at things, imho.

I saw the mock-up of the new 50mm f1.4 at a photography show. Yes it is quite big but no larger than comparable offerings from the usual suspects.

[Na Horuk]

I wouldn't say so. It is a new lens with probably a lot high specs than those lenses. But it does cover roughly the same focal length and if you have one of those lenses and are happy with the performance then you won't need this (and it will be a lot bigger than those lenses too).

I just find it odd that it might cannibalize other Pentax "normal" lenses (FA 43mm, DA 50mm f1.8, FA 50mm f1.4, DA* 55mm f1.4, possibly even DFA 50mm f2.8) and compete against the industry giants (Sigma Art, Zeiss); even though Pentax was generally known for its compact size and image character (not just pure resolution, but contrasts, colors, bokeh, pixie dust). I really hope the new DFA* 50mm is a home run, even though I prefer "limited" style lenses over *.
I hope it will bring in lots of new users, most of all

[Kunzite]

People like to go on about how poor old Pentax doesn't have any money. You'd think the Chairman of Ricoh is so hard up he has dress from a charity store and moonlight as a children's entertainer just to put food on the table. In reality Ricoh are a multi-billion corporation and their investment strategy is a choice, not a necessity. This strategy seems to have brought us about one new lens a year, minimal marketing in many places, and a falling market share now down to 2-3 per cent probably.

Presumably, developing a full line of camera products costs more than one person's clothing. Then there's this outrageous idea about camera makers being into the business in order to make a profit...

FTR, they never made just one lens a year - and you saying one new lens a year, is asking us to ignoreRicoh re-making all DA limiteds with HD coatings and rounded apertures. There's a possibility that we'd only see one K-mount lens this year, OK, but we're barely into Q2 so we don't know.
Minimal marketing is nothing new. The consensus is, we don't want to pay for marketing.
Falling market share is speculation. Don't forget, the DSLR market is falling (according to CIPA's production/shipments figures)... just by staying constant (in volume), Pentax would gain.

PNikon for all their foibles still have a share ten times greater and their camera division is profitable. Canon and Fuji don't seem to do so badly either. People have been saying that Canon are for the chop for years, terrible strategy, bound to fail, but last year Canon did so badly they managed to account for half of all cameras made and sold. Er ... .There may well be a risk of Nikon exiting the market in some fashion, but there is just as much risk that Ricoh will suddenly change its strategy and dump cameras. If Ricoh did that, their stock price would probably increase not decrease. A temptation, isn't it.

The good old "the grass is greener..", combined with a bit of FUD-ish speculation

---------- Post added 11-04-17 at 05:19 PM ----------

I just find it odd that it might cannibalize other Pentax "normal" lenses (FA 43mm, DA 50mm f1.8, FA 50mm f1.4, DA* 55mm f1.4, possibly even DFA 50mm f2.8) and compete against the industry giants (Sigma Art, Zeiss); even though Pentax was generally known for its compact size and image character (not just pure resolution, but contrasts, colors, bokeh, pixie dust). I really hope the new DFA* 50mm is a home run, even though I prefer "limited" style lenses over *.
I hope it will bring in lots of new users, most of all

Cannibalize?
Outcompete industry giants, I hope they'll do that - but cannibalize older, inexpensive lenses?

[mecrox]

Presumably, developing a full line of camera products costs more than one person's clothing. Then there's this outrageous idea about camera makers being into the business in order to make a profit...

FTR, they never made just one lens a year - and you saying one new lens a year, is asking us to ignoreRicoh re-making all DA limiteds with HD coatings and rounded apertures. There's a possibility that we'd only see one K-mount lens this year, OK, but we're barely into Q2 so we don't know.
Minimal marketing is nothing new. The consensus is, we don't want to pay for marketing.
Falling market share is speculation. Don't forget, the DSLR market is falling (according to CIPA's production/shipments figures)... just by staying constant (in volume), Pentax would gain.


The good old "the grass is greener..", combined with a bit of FUD-ish speculation

I prefer a sunnier outlook on life and freedom from brand enslavement. The FUD-ish speculation is that one can't throw off the handcuffs and either move on or shoot more than one brand of camera. It's nonsense and masses of people on this board shoot more than one brand. Of course they like Pentax but it is not the answer for everything. As for consensus, well I'd be surprised if the consensus you refer to embraced more than about 25 people with an average age of 296. I've never seen the faintest trace of it anywhere else. Look on almost any other board and you find a very different story. Pentax nearly always gets high marks for build quality and IQ, quite rightly, but low marks for some other things including the no-marketing marketing. As for corporate profits, why should any camera-buyer give a fig about them. Much of those profits will be soon wasted on harebrained schemes, pocketed by greedy executives or funnelled towards tax havens or criminal syndicates anyway. Buyers just want a camera they like and they should be free to dream of the camera they'd build and buy if they could. That's how new things get made. Going around pleading poverty when the brand's parent company is one of the world's largest is in very poor taste, imho.

[Kunzite]

Let me guess... you jumped ship. Hmm... yes, Olympus, I see on your Flickr gallery... how's the EM-5 MkII?
People, you can jump ship without attacking your old brand and its users! Failure to do so is on you, not on us.

Speaking of "harebrained schemes" and "criminal syndicates" is laughable, do you remember the 2011 Olympus scandal?

[photoptimist]

Great post but it's hard to see why people get so fussed about all this stuff. Buy what you enjoy and which meets your requirements. Chances are it will fall to pieces in 3-5 years anyway given the build quality of most modern cameras. Only a very few people have enough expensive lenses to lock them into a brand. And if purchased secondhand, the financial loss on equipment won't be that great anyway.

People like to go on about how poor old Pentax doesn't have any money. You'd think the Chairman of Ricoh is so hard up he has dress from a charity store and moonlight as a children's entertainer just to put food on the table. In reality Ricoh are a multi-billion corporation and their investment strategy is a choice, not a necessity. This strategy seems to have brought us about one new lens a year, minimal marketing in many places, and a falling market share now down to 2-3 per cent probably. Nikon for all their foibles still have a share ten times greater and their camera division is profitable. Canon and Fuji don't seem to do so badly either. People have been saying that Canon are for the chop for years, terrible strategy, bound to fail, but last year Canon did so badly they managed to account for half of all cameras made and sold. Er ... .There may well be a risk of Nikon exiting the market in some fashion, but there is just as much risk that Ricoh will suddenly change its strategy and dump cameras. If Ricoh did that, their stock price would probably increase not decrease. A temptation, isn't it.

So, imho, buy whatever you want, shoot the heck out of it for 3-4 years if it lasts that long, then move on. Pentax are perfectly viable today so why worry that in four years' time Ricoh may be investing the money in Hello Kitty alarm clocks instead. You may "lose" a few bob if that is how you want to look at it but your "loss" will have given you countless hours of pure pleasure. A rather sad way to look at things, imho.

I saw the mock-up of the new 50mm f1.4 at a photography show. Yes it is quite big but no larger than comparable offerings from the usual suspects.

Personally, I agree with you about camera choice. I switched to Pentax for the K-10D and then bought the K-5 and then the K-1 for my last 3 cameras for their technical performance and features. I don't care how popular the brand is because brand popularity has no effect on my photography. And I use (or abuse) my equipment because photography is an all-weather, four-season hobby for me -- a camera at home or in the bag can't take pictures! Barring misfortune, I doubt I'll be buying another camera before 2020 and although familiarity and a stock of lenses might bias me toward Pentax, I'd have no problem switching if another camera maker offers a more compelling system. (Note that I do suspect that Pentax will be that next camera simply based on their current design ethos relative to other brands and would like Pentax to be around in 2020 to offer a good K-1 replacement.)

But I do understand the brand loyalty effect. For some, being a Pentaxian is like being part of tribe or rooting for a sports team. You want them to "win". My whole point for these loyalists is that Pentax' path to winning may be a lot more subtle than the brute force approach of spending millions on marketing and lots of new products. In fact, over-spending may be disastrous.

[awscreo]

I just find it odd that it might cannibalize other Pentax "normal" lenses (FA 43mm, DA 50mm f1.8, FA 50mm f1.4, DA* 55mm f1.4, possibly even DFA 50mm f2.8) and compete against the industry giants (Sigma Art, Zeiss); even though Pentax was generally known for its compact size and image character (not just pure resolution, but contrasts, colors, bokeh, pixie dust). I really hope the new DFA* 50mm is a home run, even though I prefer "limited" style lenses over *.
I hope it will bring in lots of new users, most of all

Mm, it probably wouldn't because it's speculated that it's going to be quite expensive. People that don't want top shelf lenses could easily settle with a fa 50 1.4 for 300$ or 55 1.4 for 700$. Those are just tiers in their line up - cheap, moderate, expensive.

[Kunzite]

But I do understand the brand loyalty effect. For some, being a Pentaxian is like being part of tribe or rooting for a sports team. You want them to "win". My whole point for these loyalists is that Pentax' path to winning may be a lot more subtle than the brute force approach of spending millions on marketing and lots of new products. In fact, over-spending may be disastrous.

"Winning" is overrated, especially when we don't know the prize
However, everyone would lose for each brand getting out of the camera business. Even other systems' users.