Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Closed Thread
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-21-2017, 06:38 AM   #121
Pentaxian
Site Supporter
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 29,965
QuoteOriginally posted by filmamigo Quote
It's a false analogy. The reason we get passionate about video is because Pentax is SO CLOSE. We love shooting stills with Pentax, we want to spend our money on Pentax, and we would have no reason to look elsewhere if Pentax paid enough attention to video to make some minor tweaks.
How many current users would Pentax lose implementing better video, because of higher unit cost? And where would those users go to find what they want? People asking for better video are asking Pentax to add cost for all of us, to keep them from buying another brand? Just buy the other brand.

Match D810 video and D810 tracking AF and my guess is you have a D810 priced camera. I wanted a K-1 priced camera.

There is one compelling argument for better video in Pentax bodies, it would be free. Once you get over that fallacy the rest will fall into place in terms of figuring out why so many of us are overjoyed that Pentax chose to concentrate on it's core with Pixel Shift and in body SR rather than spend money on better video. It also explains why we hate even the idea of better video in Pentax. There are two sides of the fence here. Pentax has chosen to go with bargain basement video at a bargain basement price, maybe the only company that does, and we really, really like that about Pentax. A few people claiming that they want it when it's available everywhere else, it's like the whole world has to conform to what they want and the rest of us will have to pay for it.

No wonder there's such a strong reaction against it. It's selfish and goes against our interests. Every Tom, Dick and Harry camera company offers video of some sort, and so does Pentax. That's good enough.

It a false question. A better one would be how much would it be worth to you to have 4k video in your Pentax camera, an additional $200, and additional $400, how much? People who want it for free, just stay out of the discussion, that's not reasonable.


Last edited by normhead; 04-21-2017 at 07:52 AM.
04-21-2017, 06:45 AM - 1 Like   #122
Veteran Member
Lurch's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 583
History also says that Pentax pushing video can ruin a good camera (K20D -> K7)
04-21-2017, 06:52 AM   #123
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Avalon Peninsula, Newfoundland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 500
QuoteOriginally posted by filmamigo Quote
It's a false analogy. The reason we get passionate about video ...
But this thread isn't about video good, bad, or indifferent. It's about the marketing fact that the K-1 is drawing in a larger community.

There are plenty of video threads around.
04-21-2017, 06:59 AM - 2 Likes   #124
Pentaxian
photoptimist's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2016
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,498
QuoteOriginally posted by geomez Quote
QuoteOriginally posted by photoptimist Quote
My personal experience is that mainstream brands -- those that target "winning" -- suck for me. MacDonalds, Microsoft, CocaCola, Budweiser, Kraft Cheese, etc. have all "won" the most marketshare but they've lost me as a customer.
I'm right there with you, but if Pentax offered the same product but with all the things fixed that reviewers ding it for like better AF and video, would they loose you? I for one would still be a Pentaxian, just a more enthusiastic and more capable one. And you're right, Ricoh may not be trying to "win", but I don't think they bought Pentax for the sake of posterity. I think they want to make money like all big multinationals in a capitalist world and "winning", i.e. greater market share with us included would mean more money.
Sure, if Pentax had a magic wand that could instantly improve there AF and video, I'd keep buying them. But they don't have a magic wand. Improvements take time and cost money. And, meanwhile, Pentax competitors are spending money on better AF and video. My personal experience is that Pentax has made huge improvement in AF. The K-1's AF is hugely improved relative to the K-5 and the K-5's AF was much better than the K-10D's. But so have Nikon, Canon, etc. Could Pentax really out-spend Canon & Nikon to create AF that beats the leaders? And if Pentax divides all the R&D across their smaller volumes and adds thousands of dollars to the price of their bodies, what will happen to sales and marketshare then?

Video is an even worse no-win situation for Pentax. There's no way Pentax can avoid being dinged on video in a competition with huge companies that have decades of experience in professional and consumer video camera design and manufacturing. Even if Pentax comes out with 4k, they will still "suck" because Canon, Sony, etc. will be offering 6k or 8k or whatever. Or Pentax will suck because Canon, Sony, etc. have spent huge amounts of time and money engineering better codecs, video AF, video stabilization (which is very different from still image stabilization), or better lenses for video (which have constraints that still image lenses don't have), etc.

In the cruel world of the internet, Pentax will always suck on some features because the competition is not standing still and the competition has much more experience and deeper pockets for investment in action sports and video than Pentax ever will have.

The funny thing is that the original post for this thread proves Pentax doesn't need to beat Canon or Nikon in action sports AF or video. Pentax can go their own direction and become known and liked for what they do offer.

04-21-2017, 07:56 AM   #125
Pentaxian
mecrox's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,308
QuoteOriginally posted by photoptimist Quote
Sure, if Pentax had a magic wand that could instantly improve there AF and video, I'd keep buying them. But they don't have a magic wand. Improvements take time and cost money. And, meanwhile, Pentax competitors are spending money on better AF and video. My personal experience is that Pentax has made huge improvement in AF. The K-1's AF is hugely improved relative to the K-5 and the K-5's AF was much better than the K-10D's. But so have Nikon, Canon, etc. Could Pentax really out-spend Canon & Nikon to create AF that beats the leaders? And if Pentax divides all the R&D across their smaller volumes and adds thousands of dollars to the price of their bodies, what will happen to sales and marketshare then?

Video is an even worse no-win situation for Pentax. There's no way Pentax can avoid being dinged on video in a competition with huge companies that have decades of experience in professional and consumer video camera design and manufacturing. Even if Pentax comes out with 4k, they will still "suck" because Canon, Sony, etc. will be offering 6k or 8k or whatever. Or Pentax will suck because Canon, Sony, etc. have spent huge amounts of time and money engineering better codecs, video AF, video stabilization (which is very different from still image stabilization), or better lenses for video (which have constraints that still image lenses don't have), etc.

In the cruel world of the internet, Pentax will always suck on some features because the competition is not standing still and the competition has much more experience and deeper pockets for investment in action sports and video than Pentax ever will have.

The funny thing is that the original post for this thread proves Pentax doesn't need to beat Canon or Nikon in action sports AF or video. Pentax can go their own direction and become known and liked for what they do offer.
Sounds like we're all channelling Back on the Video Gang
And I am not going to mention the S**y word.

How do you reach out to new users without alienating your existing users? If you don't reach out to new users then eventually you'll go out of business as your existing users fade away or quite simply expire. But reaching out costs money, sometimes a lot of money. Frying pan or fire.

I would guess that lot of the current debate around v***o will soon be solved, possibly later this year. Chances are Pentax will have reached the point when their component suppliers now offer quality v***o at no extra cost. It's on the chip anyway. We're now at the commodity phase with it and long past the much more costly early adoption bit. Exactly the same arguments were advanced against wifi. All came to nothing.

The interesting thing is that no matter how fiercely resisted, innovations are very soon accepted as quite ordinary and normal by nearly everyone. I am sure this and other ones will be too and they will bring more new users to Pentax.
04-21-2017, 08:02 AM - 1 Like   #126
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Avalon Peninsula, Newfoundland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 500
QuoteOriginally posted by mecrox Quote
...

How do you reach out to new users without alienating your existing users? If you don't reach out to new users then eventually you'll go out of business as your existing users fade away or quite simply expire. But reaching out costs money, sometimes a lot of money. Frying pan or fire.

...
Yet the point here in the original post is apparently the K-1 HAS reached out to new users. Isn't this interesting? Why is it so?
04-21-2017, 08:07 AM   #127
Pentaxian
Site Supporter
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 29,965
QuoteOriginally posted by mecrox Quote
Sounds like we're all channelling Back on the Video Gang Back on the Video Gang And I am not going to mention the S**y word.

How do you reach out to new users without alienating your existing users? If you don't reach out to new users then eventually you'll go out of business as your existing users fade away or quite simply expire. But reaching out costs money, sometimes a lot of money. Frying pan or fire.

I would guess that lot of the current debate around v***o will soon be solved, possibly later this year. Chances are Pentax will have reached the point when their component suppliers now offer quality v***o at no extra cost. It's on the chip anyway. We're now at the commodity phase with it and long past the much more costly early adoption bit. Exactly the same arguments were advanced against wifi. All came to nothing.

The interesting thing is that no matter how fiercely resisted, innovations are very soon accepted as quite ordinary and normal by nearly everyone. I am sure this and other ones will be too and they will bring more new users to Pentax.
When it gets to the point where it's just swapping in a new chip with new capabilities for close to the same price I'm sure everyone is on board. That is not the case right now. And by that time there will be a new latest greatest for the whiners to be arguing for. Pentax brought in a pile of new users by being $1000 less than the competition for the best quality stills. If they can keep doing that and add better tracking AF and Video at the same time, we can all be happy. No one resists innovation, but people fiercely resist higher prices, by not buying your product. Video advocates seem to think Pentax can sell cameras on the shelves head up against Canon, Nikon and Sony by matching features and selling for a similar price. There is absolutely no evidence to support that hypothesis.

Last edited by normhead; 04-21-2017 at 08:12 AM.
04-21-2017, 08:08 AM - 1 Like   #128
Pentaxian
johnmflores's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Somerville, NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,264
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Well then we disagree on the purpose of a camera.

I just find it interesting how the video guys have spent all their time dodging the question this thread raises.

How is it possible that Pentax had doubled their sales of the K-1 at the expense of other brands, with such inadequate video? Clearly a lot of other people don't agree? Clearly a lot of people don't value it.

That is what is interesting to those of us for whom video is an un-used extra. There are clearly lots of us, in fact given that almost all the new users probably came from brand with better video, they were willing to give up whatever advantage their may have been to get what Pentax offers. So, their are a lot of folks who won't pay for state of the art video in a still camera who are speaking with their wallets.

The continued assertion that Pentax would have better sales if they added better video, is not supported by the evidence. The evidence suggest people will ditch better video to get what they want in a still. Maybe not everyone, but enough to keep Pentax afloat.

As for the above prognostications, the cost of adding better video is unknown, the effect on Pentax purchasers is unknown. except that in economics the idea that higher price leads to lower sales is pretty much established. There is absolutely no reason to suggest better video would lead to more market share. It would be a win some, lose some situation. The losses could easily overtake the gains. There are so many companies out there who do video, I'm pretty sure its a near consensus on the forum that Pentax investing in video would be against our interests. We like what Pentax has done. And so do the half of K-1 users that came from other brands.

To us, saying a camera should do great video is kind of like saying we should put a backhoe on the back end of our cars. Some people would really like it. Most of us would prefer it was gone. None of us who wanted it gone would be less than outraged if the car only came in one model with the backhoe and would buy something else. The same will happen with Pentax and video. They can add world class video if they want. The rest of us will find something else to shoot with. We're not paying for that. What's odd is so many with so much terms in terms of great video, like religious fanatics come here and advocate for better video, as if every brand has to be the same. Accept what you bought, if you don't like it, buy something else. But don't come in here complaining about what pentax has and hasn't done. That's pointless.

People who want better video should buy it. It's available. Expecting a camera that's a thousand dollars cheaper than it's competition to match it in every regard is naive, especially when it exceeds it's competition in it's core it's function. Taking stills.

Given a choice, Pixel Shift or Video capability, I'd take Pixel shift in a heart beat. Video adds nothing to what i bought the camera for. Pixels shift adds a whole ne dimension. Canon and Nikon should really add Pixel Shift to their cameras, it would increase their market share. It's hard to understand how in this day and age, the promote such primitive equipment.

Th point being, you pays your money and you takes your pick. Whining about Pentax video gets you a rep as a whiner.

Not every camera has to be the same.
All of this video talk could have been avoided if the OP had written something like, "The K-1 has managed to be a success and draw Nikon/Canon shooters into the Pentax fold despite the lack of competitive video." That point could not be debated. But to throw shade at those that are interested in video opened up Pandora's box.

04-21-2017, 08:11 AM - 1 Like   #129
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 18,370
QuoteOriginally posted by mecrox Quote
Sounds like we're all channelling Back on the Video Gang Back on the Video Gang And I am not going to mention the S**y word.

How do you reach out to new users without alienating your existing users? If you don't reach out to new users then eventually you'll go out of business as your existing users fade away or quite simply expire. But reaching out costs money, sometimes a lot of money. Frying pan or fire.

I would guess that lot of the current debate around v***o will soon be solved, possibly later this year. Chances are Pentax will have reached the point when their component suppliers now offer quality v***o at no extra cost. It's on the chip anyway. We're now at the commodity phase with it and long past the much more costly early adoption bit. Exactly the same arguments were advanced against wifi. All came to nothing.

The interesting thing is that no matter how fiercely resisted, innovations are very soon accepted as quite ordinary and normal by nearly everyone. I am sure this and other ones will be too and they will bring more new users to Pentax.
The point missed by most in this thread is that Pentax doesn't need to be Nikon or Canon. They can sell significantly fewer K-1s and still generate a nice profit because their over head is significantly less. In fact, they probably would rather avoid ramping up production to those sorts of levels. Better to grow slowly and gradually then to have a big success that requires a large investment in manufacturing.

With the K-1 they decided to make the best still landscape photography camera they could, while including interesting features like IBIS, astro tracing, and pixel shift. These are probably not enough to make a huge difference, but certainly seem to be enough to create a cult following for the K-1 as compared to other cameras out there.
04-21-2017, 08:12 AM   #130
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,237
QuoteOriginally posted by johnmflores Quote
All of this video talk could have been avoided if the OP had written something like, "The K-1 has managed to be a success and draw Nikon/Canon shooters into the Pentax fold despite the lack of competitive video." That point could not be debated. But to throw shade at those that are interested in video opened up Pandora's box.
When one starts a thread on the internet, they usually are just along for the ride after that when it meanders around.
04-21-2017, 08:19 AM   #131
Pentaxian
Site Supporter
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 29,965
QuoteOriginally posted by johnmflores Quote
All of this video talk could have been avoided if the OP had written something like, "The K-1 has managed to be a success and draw Nikon/Canon shooters into the Pentax fold despite the lack of competitive video." That point could not be debated. But to throw shade at those that are interested in video opened up Pandora's box.
Still blaming the OP for not saying what you think he should have?

How exactly does that work?
No one on the forum is aloud to say anything about video because it makes some folks lose control?
Why not criticize those who lose control?

The point was, Pentax attracted users from other platforms without improving video, and that is a fact. How do you even say that without mentioning Video? The load of baloney that followed was total conjecture. Lets allow facts and discourage inflammatory conjecture. That would be my approach.

Pentax attracted users from other platforms without improving video, and that is a fact.

The clear inference is they attracted those users because they didn't invest in video but produced a cheaper still image body. The chose to not use the lenses they own for their other systems and repurchase everything from Pentax.

Those users could have bought more expensive bodies with better tracking and better Video, but they didn't. There's a market there Pentax is tapping into.
It's not about what I believe, it's about what i see.
SO, yes everyone is at liberty to ignore the facts, but that doesn't mean their's any validity to their opinion.

Deal with it.

Last edited by normhead; 04-21-2017 at 09:04 AM.
04-21-2017, 08:45 AM - 1 Like   #132
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
jatrax's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon Cascades
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,672
QuoteOriginally posted by filmamigo Quote
A more accurate analogy would be two pickup trucks: the Panasonic pickup truck can carry one-tonne payloads, has good off-road capability, and can drive on the highway at 100 km/h. the Pentax pickup truck can carry one-tonne payloads, has good off-road capability, but can only drive on local roads at 50 km/h. Why? Probably it needs a new/different transmission. But some problems could be solved by making smaller changes to the gas pedal and the steering wheel.
Thank you! That post is an excellent, logical explanation, that actually lists the areas that need improvement. Even I understood it and I would be hard pressed to know how to turn on the video on my k-1.
Save
04-21-2017, 08:54 AM   #133
Pentaxian
johnmflores's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Somerville, NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,264
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Pentax attracted users from other platforms without improving video, and that is a fact.
That is true. I'm not debating that at all.

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Deal with it.
Dude, you need to chill.
04-21-2017, 08:55 AM - 1 Like   #134
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
geomez's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Preskitt Arizona
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,756
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote

Pentax attracted users from other platforms without improving video, and that is a fact.

...

SO, yes everyone is at liberty to ignore the facts, but that doesn't mean their's any validity to their opinion.

Deal with it.
Facts?

Why are so many people taking a Ricoh rep's statement as fact?

"Whatís more encouraging for Ricoh is that half of the customers buying the camera arenít Pentax loyalists but new customers, Eguchinotes."

None of us know if this is true. He offered no evidence supporting this claim.

Using this unsubstantiated claim to state that most Pentaxians don't want video from their dslr and new users not wanting video from their Pentax dslr is purely conjecture.


04-21-2017, 08:59 AM   #135
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: California
Posts: 528
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Well then we disagree on the purpose of a camera.

I just find it interesting how the video guys have spent all their time dodging the question this thread raises.

How is it possible that Pentax had doubled their sales of the K-1 at the expense of other brands, with such inadequate video? Clearly a lot of other people don't agree? Clearly a lot of people don't value it.

That is what is interesting to those of us for whom video is an un-used extra. There are clearly lots of us, in fact given that almost all the new users probably came from brand with better video, they were willing to give up whatever advantage their may have been to get what Pentax offers. So, their are a lot of folks who won't pay for state of the art video in a still camera who are speaking with their wallets.

The continued assertion that Pentax would have better sales if they added better video, is not supported by the evidence. The evidence suggest people will ditch better video to get what they want in a still. Maybe not everyone, but enough to keep Pentax afloat.

As for the above prognostications, the cost of adding better video is unknown, the effect on Pentax purchasers is unknown. except that in economics the idea that higher price leads to lower sales is pretty much established. There is absolutely no reason to suggest better video would lead to more market share. It would be a win some, lose some situation. The losses could easily overtake the gains. There are so many companies out there who do video, I'm pretty sure its a near consensus on the forum that Pentax investing in video would be against our interests. We like what Pentax has done. And so do the half of K-1 users that came from other brands.

To us, saying a camera should do great video is kind of like saying we should put a backhoe on the back end of our cars. Some people would really like it. Most of us would prefer it was gone. None of us who wanted it gone would be less than outraged if the car only came in one model with the backhoe and would buy something else. The same will happen with Pentax and video. They can add world class video if they want. The rest of us will find something else to shoot with. We're not paying for that. What's odd is so many with so much terms in terms of great video, like religious fanatics come here and advocate for better video, as if every brand has to be the same. Accept what you bought, if you don't like it, buy something else. But don't come in here complaining about what pentax has and hasn't done. That's pointless.

People who want better video should buy it. It's available. Expecting a camera that's a thousand dollars cheaper than it's competition to match it in every regard is naive, especially when it exceeds it's competition in it's core it's function. Taking stills.

Given a choice, Pixel Shift or Video capability, I'd take Pixel shift in a heart beat. Video adds nothing to what i bought the camera for. Pixels shift adds a whole ne dimension. Canon and Nikon should really add Pixel Shift to their cameras, it would increase their market share. It's hard to understand how in this day and age, the promote such primitive equipment.

Th point being, you pays your money and you takes your pick. Whining about Pentax video gets you a rep as a whiner.

Not every camera has to be the same.


I think this where spending a little more in marketing would pay off. Not to simply say buy our cameras, but put more emphasis on the items pentax does well on. It would change the narrative to this is what we excel at, this is what we put our r&d on, and we are still here.



Closed Thread

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, company, customers, data, guys, hd, k-1, k-1 another nikon/canon, level, lot, medium, movies, nikon/canon shooter, pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors, pentaxian buying k-1, pm, post, ricoh, sample, screen, shooter jumped ship, size, statement, thread, video, view
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Greetings - First Time Pentax User - Jumped Shipped from Canon bsjsfo Welcomes and Introductions 5 07-07-2014 12:40 PM
Jumped Ship - K5 urundai Pentax K-5 39 04-22-2013 04:09 PM
Finally jumped ship Hey Elwood Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 21 06-11-2012 09:31 PM
As Pentaxian, if you were to jump ship, Nikon, Canon, Sony, or? LFLee Pentax DSLR Discussion 215 06-11-2012 08:11 AM
K-r jumped ship to Sony A55 due to FF issues SteveUK Pentax K-r 15 06-25-2011 10:58 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:35 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top