Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-03-2017, 12:02 AM   #151
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 10,655
QuoteOriginally posted by camyum Quote
And alas, all the Pentaxians with a bit o brain know the K-1 is not the FF we waited for,
As in, everyone who likes the K-1 and bought it not just because it was the only Pentax option is brainless?

I'll put it on a communication glitch.

08-03-2017, 02:58 AM   #152
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 18,082
QuoteOriginally posted by camyum Quote
pentax has to....
ricoh has to...
if i divide one plus to and take away...



........................

I dont want to hook up there.
Instead i wanted to state that:

I would defenitely buy a D500 equivalent from Pentax at the same price tag.

Until that time all my needs are fullfilled with the PENTAX K-S2 that I financed by selling off my K-3.
:P
If you want 1300-1500Dollars,Euros, Pounds, whatevers from me... you better offer a decent upgrade to the former flagship.

And if you want to sell me a fullframe-camera demand you price and build it with competitive features.
I tell you guys reading that, i would jump ship immediately if I wouldnt have a vast amount of expensive glass at home for a semi-pro.

Since price effort in Pentaxland is gone, (That happened when the hype that the PENTAX system received from building the K-5 series, which was able to compete with Canon 7D at that time, made the System attractive again)... and the hype slowly dies away, I really can not suggest photography beginners to invest in the pentax brand, looking at the technical features the cams offer.

For instance, I would suggest it, and buy new kit, if the AF performance improves drastically.

And as a reminder to all the fanatics that think they are "involved" because they sell cams or get paid for their photos a few times a year, i want you to know that:
K.I.S.S.
As a normal human being you neither could nor should interpret anything into those numbers.
You will never know about the profit such a company makes... and at least it is a profitable company. (Keep in mind that there are values at the stock market that rise so high and are not even half profitable as RICOH)
It is a fact that even people who are deeply involved, sometimes do not have a clue about such things.

The only thing i do know from business lessons is:
Every darn product you can buy on the market goes thru

production cost + (at least) 100% to the bulk buyer, who adds up himself >
(at least) 100% to the importeur, who adds up himself >
(at least) 100% to the retailer, who maybe still does/formerly used to >
add up 100% to the customer

What do the usual suspects learn from this? Right ! nothing !
But a normal person should be able to read out, that RICOH Imaging is not salvation army, production cost is very much below what one would guess and they better dont worry about numbers that are written for people that juggle with millions and billions of dollars.

I am pretty sure we will see a worthy successor to the K-3II with improved AF and other features, that mostly all Pentaxians are waiting for, even if the usual suspects deny, they want those features, everytime someone here on PF demands such improvements from Ricoh-Imaging.
I also heard these nay-sayers doing prognoses that pentaxians will never see a FF not so long ago.

And alas, all the Pentaxians with a bit o brain know the K-1 is not the FF we waited for,
but at least it IS here and PENTAX indeed is back to getting interesting... for the professionals.
At least one can read that out of most magazines that are doing reviews about the K-1.
(Even if they list all the drawbacks, those reviews always confirm the K-1's outstanding Image Quality)

I wish you much fun on sophisticating on further into the doomed future of the pentax system.
I'm not sure what you are getting at, but Kunzite is correct in saying that folks who purchased K-1 cameras are more pleased with it than upset. I've only heard a few complaints on the forum (which tends to magnify those) and many great images. That's a good ratio as far as I am concerned.

Auto focus is gradually improving and the next cameras will be better yet. That said, Pentax hasn't targeted sports shooters to this point and I doubt they will do so any time soon. Even if they had the camera body, they don't have the glass to make full use of it.
08-06-2017, 12:24 AM   #153
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,857
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
I get your point (I'm watching to grab a mirrorless prime combo for traveling). Coming from apsc, I find u43 very much "consumer" grade, pictures are good but a bit limited with ISO. Recently, we see sensors like the one in the KP, 24Mp apsc, deliver near full frame image quality at a fraction of the cost and size. u43 offer small bodies, but the size difference between apsc mirrorless and u43 isn't much. I like the Fuji XT2, fast AF, nicely built and stylish but is expensive. The XT20 is cheaper but ergonomically not as good as XT2. I've tried the Canon M5, nice, M mount lenses feels cheap, autofocus same as Pentax. So, I believe there will be more competition for mirrorless camera in a couple of year from now, maybe a good Nikon mirrorless better than Canon M. I prefer to wait and see.
That's why I wait and see... And why I'll not invest more in Pentax neither until some brand give me a significant improvement. My setup work, I am in no hurry. I need improvement that matter to me.

m4/3 need of OM1-II sensor to be widespread at least, Sony APSC, some decent transtandard, Fuji need IBIS. The price of all bodies will only go down with time, no issue.
08-06-2017, 12:35 AM   #154
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,857
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I'm not sure what you are getting at, but Kunzite is correct in saying that folks who purchased K-1 cameras are more pleased with it than upset. I've only heard a few complaints on the forum (which tends to magnify those) and many great images. That's a good ratio as far as I am concerned.

Auto focus is gradually improving and the next cameras will be better yet. That said, Pentax hasn't targeted sports shooters to this point and I doubt they will do so any time soon. Even if they had the camera body, they don't have the glass to make full use of it.
Sony on its A7 line is no better than Pentax for sports in term of lenses but Sony just released A9, the ultimate mirrorless sport camera. Until recently Pentax was APSC only too.

If all weakness are a given and can't be improved, you don't evolve.

The problem is the things like A9 or A7RII and the same from Canon and Nikon make, people dream. Much more from Nikon and Canon as all the pro use the big guns from Canikon at sport events. People see that and when they buy their entry level APSC body they take the same brand... There no link between the performance of the flagchip and of an entry level body, but people want to think they use the same brand as professionals.

Sony manage to make people dream as do Canon and Nikon. Pentax has difficulties to achieve that. They did it when they release K1. But people want more.

08-06-2017, 01:24 AM - 2 Likes   #155
Pentaxian
mecrox's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,284
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I'm not sure what you are getting at, but Kunzite is correct in saying that folks who purchased K-1 cameras are more pleased with it than upset. I've only heard a few complaints on the forum (which tends to magnify those) and many great images. That's a good ratio as far as I am concerned.

Auto focus is gradually improving and the next cameras will be better yet. That said, Pentax hasn't targeted sports shooters to this point and I doubt they will do so any time soon. Even if they had the camera body, they don't have the glass to make full use of it.
I'm sure they really like their K1 and the same is true of a D5, D810, 5D Mark IV, etc. But what about the other 90 buyers in every 100? A company cannot survive unless it has some hot-kicking items to offer the majority of customers who'll never be up for an expensive professional camera. In some parts of the world about 40 of those 90 customers are now going for mirrorless cameras, certainly in terms of cash to the camera companies in somewhere like Japan, so that's another thing to accommodate. Big changes going on. How long would Nikon last if the only two cameras they offered were the D5 and the D810 (soon to be 850 at $$$)?

Last edited by mecrox; 08-06-2017 at 02:05 AM.
08-06-2017, 02:11 AM   #156
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,394
QuoteOriginally posted by mecrox Quote
How long would Nikon last if the only two cameras they offered were the D5 and the D810 (soon to be 850 at $$$)?
That a big dollar question. Nikon releasing a D850, instead of a u43 mirrorless, and they cancel the DL line, two mistakes one after the other (just being sarcastic). Unless, maybe 40% of the market buying sub $1000 cameras + lenses (minus unit costs and commercial costs) is less attractive than the 60% of the market buying $8000 camera + lenses (minus the same commercial costs) . If you consider 50% gross margin for sub 1000 cameras and 80% gross margin for $8000 cameras systems, it could compute such as:
40 x 600 x 0.5 = 12000
60 x 8000 x 0.8 = 384000

So, who is wrong? Nobody is wrong. It's just that some people are willing to spent $600 max on a camera+lenses (below that price, they simply use their phone), while other people are willing to spend $10K. A few from the bottom is not the same as the view from the very top. Now, for all the folks using a lens longer than 100mm/200mm lenses, whether the camera is with mirror or without mirror doesn't matter because past 100mm FL mark, all lenses are better balanced mounted on a DSLR.

Last edited by biz-engineer; 08-06-2017 at 02:40 AM.
08-06-2017, 02:11 AM   #157
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 11,014
QuoteOriginally posted by mecrox Quote
I'm sure they really like their K1 and the same is true of a D5, D810, 5D Mark IV, etc. But what about the other 90 buyers in every 100? A company cannot survive unless it has some hot-kicking items to offer the majority of customers who'll never be up for an expensive professional camera. In some parts of the world about 40 of those 90 customers are now going for mirrorless cameras, certainly in terms of cash to the camera companies in somewhere like Japan, so that's another thing to accommodate. Big changes going on. How long would Nikon last if the only two cameras they offered were the D5 and the D810 (soon to be 850 at $$$)?
Specialty stores (low volume, high markup) can survive or even thrive when supermarket chains (high volume, low profit) run themselves out of business in a price war chasing the lowest common denominator.

The problem for Nikon, Canon and Sony is that their intrinsic setups were high volume, and all three have plunged since 2012.
08-06-2017, 02:33 AM   #158
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 10,655
QuoteOriginally posted by mecrox Quote
I'm sure they really like their K1 and the same is true of a D5, D810, 5D Mark IV, etc. But what about the other 90 buyers in every 100? A company cannot survive unless it has some hot-kicking items to offer the majority of customers who'll never be up for an expensive professional camera. In some parts of the world about 40 of those 90 customers are now going for mirrorless cameras, certainly in terms of cash to the camera companies in somewhere like Japan, so that's another thing to accommodate. Big changes going on. How long would Nikon last if the only two cameras they offered were the D5 and the D810 (soon to be 850 at $$$)?
So, you're saying that going after "40 of those 90 customers" is a better strategy than going after 50(+10) of those 90( +10) customers?

08-06-2017, 02:47 AM   #159
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 18,082
QuoteOriginally posted by mecrox Quote
I'm sure they really like their K1 and the same is true of a D5, D810, 5D Mark IV, etc. But what about the other 90 buyers in every 100? A company cannot survive unless it has some hot-kicking items to offer the majority of customers who'll never be up for an expensive professional camera. In some parts of the world about 40 of those 90 customers are now going for mirrorless cameras, certainly in terms of cash to the camera companies in somewhere like Japan, so that's another thing to accommodate. Big changes going on. How long would Nikon last if the only two cameras they offered were the D5 and the D810 (soon to be 850 at $$$)?
They need both entry level cameras and upper end cameras. Lower end cameras don't have as much profit, nor do folks who buy them have much money to spend on lenses. At the same time, the hope would be that some people who buy lower end cameras catch the photography bug and move into upper end gear. If so, if they started with a K-S2 they are more likely to get a K-1.

Regardless, the goal for each company should be to sell each unit for a profit. But there is probably more profit per unit to be made from a D850 or 645z than from a D5500.
08-06-2017, 03:28 AM   #160
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,394
For any electronic product having similar R&D costs (for instance, the size of the sensor doesn't play much role here..) and similar unit cost, what counts is the market size in dollar amount. That, every company running a camera business makes the calculation for itself using real cost figures and estimated sales volume, something that any consumer individual not working directly in the guts of the camera business could not figure out.
08-06-2017, 05:17 AM   #161
Pentaxian
mecrox's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,284
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
They need both entry level cameras and upper end cameras. Lower end cameras don't have as much profit, nor do folks who buy them have much money to spend on lenses. At the same time, the hope would be that some people who buy lower end cameras catch the photography bug and move into upper end gear. If so, if they started with a K-S2 they are more likely to get a K-1.

Regardless, the goal for each company should be to sell each unit for a profit. But there is probably more profit per unit to be made from a D850 or 645z than from a D5500.
Exactly. While none of us knows what the companies will do, logic suggests they will try to reach out to as much of the market as they profitably can with a range of different products, pehaps even a more diverse range than now offerd if one includes MILCs. There just aren't many people at all with thousands to spend and for them going big and FF is far too much. There are high margins and superb equipment at the top end but that is, what, 10-15 per cent of the market? We probably have a rather skewed idea in here because we are all enthusiasts and think less often about the other 75 per cent or more..
08-06-2017, 04:18 PM   #162
retired nerd
Loyal Site Supporter
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,980
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
They need both entry level cameras and upper end cameras. Lower end cameras don't have as much profit, nor do folks who buy them have much money to spend on lenses. At the same time, the hope would be that some people who buy lower end cameras catch the photography bug and move into upper end gear. If so, if they started with a K-S2 they are more likely to get a K-1
Yes, they must have an entry level camera which accurately reflects the values provided by the more expensive cameras. Each lens someone owns decreases the likelihood s/he will change brands when deciding to purchase a more advanced camera.
08-06-2017, 06:40 PM   #163
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago Suburbs.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 500
entry to a brand

QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
Yes, they must have an entry level camera which accurately reflects the values provided by the more expensive cameras. Each lens someone owns decreases the likelihood s/he will change brands when deciding to purchase a more advanced camera.
I agree. Entry to a brand means there is enough to explore past the initial offering. For all camera makers, this is getting very difficult. Pentax/Ricoh could do something like a beefed-up Brownie Box camera, but a true DSLR. They tried it with the K2000 but that did not go anywhere but that was with a 10 MP sensor. They could re-introduce that with a 24 MP sensor with just green modes of different types, an easy to use pop up flash, simple to obtain battery but let them buy any K-mount lenses they want. Then have a K-70 type, then a KP and K3 replacement, then a K1 and K1 replacement for a full range line up. The Q and 645 lines would have to evolve to share common features/manufacturing (somehow) to save money. This is a very difficult problem because most people see sensors on phones as "good enough". And now phones are adding camera functionality to future designs. They have to maintain a big enough "ecosystem" to attract and keep new users. Not being able to share Q and 645 lenses with K-mount makes it difficult to maintain those lines with such huge pressure from all directions.

I will go out on a limb and predict that Ricoh pulls the plug on the "Q" system just like Nikon (maybe) just pulled the plug on the "1" system last month.
LINK TO: Nikon 1 Discontinued??

The 645 system still has a chance to evolve but Q seems dead unless they can morph it into a phone/radio/walkie-talkie/bottle-opener....
08-06-2017, 07:52 PM   #164
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,499
Q taught them quite a lot about mirrorless manufacturing techniques, and that they can completely outsource high quality electronic lens electronic (to Cosina). The MILC hangup is sourcing an EVF.
08-06-2017, 08:03 PM   #165
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 11,014
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
Q taught them quite a lot about mirrorless manufacturing techniques, and that they can completely outsource high quality electronic lens electronic (to Cosina). The MILC hangup is sourcing an EVF.
IIRC, all the camera companies get them from Epson.

Reply

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!
3d, business, businesses, camera, cameras, company, components, devices, environment, equipment, f2.8, figures, i.e, images, lenses, money, pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors, people, period, photography, products, profit, q1, ricoh, semiconductor, vision
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nikon's Year (Financial Results) - an analysis interested_observer Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 10 05-13-2017 05:49 AM
Ricoh Financial results - FY2017/03 Kunzite Pentax News and Rumors 373 04-28-2017 06:10 AM
Sony financial results - A7 etc. camera collapse with interesting insights beholder3 Photographic Industry and Professionals 29 12-10-2016 01:55 AM
Ricoh Imaging is not doomed (or: Ricoh Financial Results Q1 2016) Kunzite Pentax News and Rumors 69 10-24-2015 10:31 AM
Pentax Financial results Q1 FY14 Zav Pentax News and Rumors 38 08-20-2013 05:44 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:09 AM. | 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