[Racer X 69]

In the marketing class I took as part of my MBA, I learned that marketing should include participating in design of new products .... it is much more than just "sales".

It makes sense that all team members of a manufacturer work in a collaborative manner to identify, develop and produce the products of their intended customers.

[alcstudios]

It makes sense that all team members of a manufacturer work in a collaborative manner to identify, develop and produce the products of their intended customers.

Exactly, they all have to work together, pretty much from start to finish.

[photoptimist]

It makes sense that all team members of a manufacturer work in a collaborative manner to identify, develop and produce the products of their intended customers.

Exactly!

A key role of marketing is to tell the product designers about the potential market for various feature sets and performance levels to help set priorities in R&D and product design. For example marketing might say that improved AF might be more important than improved video or that a given feature is likely to increases sale by X% or permit a $Y increase in MSRP.

It is supposed to be a collaborative process but it can be bitterly argumentative (I've lived it!) when the engineers tell the marketing folk that some feature demanded by customers is going to take another 18 months to develop and double the cost of the camera.

[Kobie]

How many of us Pentaxians knew well in advance about the KP? For me, the KP pretty much came out of nowhere. Pentax has done that a few times. Kept a tight lip (could be waiting for patent offices to sign off, who knows) and then pretty much announced specs right before the release. Everyone was in the dark before the official announcements. So, between R&D, engineering, marketing, designers, field testers, it doesn't matter. All that matters is that something IS coming.

[ThorSanchez]

How many of us Pentaxians knew well in advance about the KP? For me, the KP pretty much came out of nowhere. Pentax has done that a few times. Kept a tight lip (could be waiting for patent offices to sign off, who knows) and then pretty much announced specs right before the release. Everyone was in the dark before the official announcements. So, between R&D, engineering, marketing, designers, field testers, it doesn't matter. All that matters is that something IS coming.

I think Pentax would be better off with some kind of advance announcement. Even one of those cheesy, dark, half-revealed photos of something mysterious posted on a Ricoh web page. With their near-zero North American marketing budget and tight-lipped secrecy pre-launch, if you're not monitoring sites like this you might not even notice something has been released.

It's a little like new music, where you have to go out and find your favorite niche band's new album and you might not think to do that for a while and when you do you realize it has been out for months.

[Chris Mak]

I think Pentax would be better off with some kind of advance announcement. Even one of those cheesy, dark, half-revealed photos of something mysterious posted on a Ricoh web page. With their near-zero North American marketing budget and tight-lipped secrecy pre-launch, if you're not monitoring sites like this you might not even notice something has been released.

It's a little like new music, where you have to go out and find your favorite niche band's new album and you might not think to do that for a while and when you do you realize it has been out for months.

I agree with this. Given the whole "situation" around the absence of a new APS-C wildlife/sports/birding and allround action photography capable flagship, it was not a pretty sound of silence during last Photokina. Time to revise their strategy for sure.

Chris

[mtgmansf]

I was hoping someone else would respond ... this does deserve an answer. What kind of camera should replace the K-3ii is ultimately not a technical decision - it is a marketing decision {one aspect of marketing is deciding what a new product should consist of to meet needs of the market}

I have already made clear my opinion that an MILC would be a failure as the upgrade path for the K-3ii, my reasons in part being

(1) As several have indicated in past pages of this thread, an EVF would never be accepted by many in group K3+ (*)

(2) In several threads, members of group K3+ have indicated dissatisfaction with the size of the KP. All kinds of issues are packed in this reason, including a desire for sufficient mass to 'balance' long lenses, and a desire for a top-side LCD. Presumably an MILC would be even smaller.

(3) In several threads, members of group K3+ have indicated a desire for a battery that would last a long time. MILCs tend to use more power and to have less room for a battery than a K-3 does.

These are the three most pressing reasons that come to mind right now. Now that I've started a list, I'd invite anyone else to add thoughts to it.



(*) for brevity I will use the term "group K3+" to denote those in the market for a K-3ii successor

Large buffer and two card slots come to mind...

[clackers]

Again, what does any of this have to do with their consistency? They test all the lenses the same way. And the way they do pretty much reflects what users will get with a lens. Computer software can be extremely accurate in assessing the data loaded into it. No need for exotic optical instruments. Nothing wrong with Imatest.
Why would you remove a camera body?! :/

Because otherwise you're not testing the lens, you're testing the lens, the camera body, the software algorithm, the subject setup and lighting, and the skill of the photographer.

It's called controlling variables.

How many people are out there photographing without a body?

I don't think that your argument works - that since amateurs do also use these things, let's not bother with professional testing procedures, Trickortreat.

But please do enlighten me about their sensor results, ill gladly discuss it.

Where do we start? Pandering to certain companies by testing or not testing, publishing or not publishing data like the 645Z results? The print graph that doesn't even involve a real world test - it's imaginary. (They do what they call 'normalize', and this is not what you think it is.) The childish "Landscape", "Sports" scores etc, as if landscapes didn't need colour depth, or sports didn't need dynamic range?

Lens rentals is a company that rents gear. They have the luxury of having multiple lenses of same kind so they can indeed check for lens variations. Other review sites get what the dealers send them. If you think Lensrental reviews are the best ones that reflect your real world use, by all means take them into account. I know I would if they tested lenses that I use. Thats the beauty of having multiple review sites...

That's why I recommended you trust them rather than DxoMark.

[Trickortreat]

Because otherwise you're not testing the lens, you're testing the lens, the camera body, the software algorithm, the subject setup and lighting, and the skill of the photographer.It's called controlling variables.

Yes, you test the whole system, I just dont see your logic why it should be dismissed. those variables are same for all the items they test.

I don't think that your argument works

They work, and you provided no arguments so far.

Pandering to certain companies by testing or not testing, publishing or not publishing data like the 645Z results?

645Z is tested and on their page. There isnt some anti pentax conspiracy. They tested K1 and all of the APS-C cameras pretty quickly and K-5 was the top rated APS-C camera for a long time.

The print graph that doesn't even involve a real world test - it's imaginary. (They do what they call 'normalize', and this is not what you think it is.

And waht do you think it means? Enlighten me.

The childish "Landscape", "Sports" scores etc, as if landscapes didn't need colour depth, or sports didn't need dynamic range?

They could call them Hugo, Jenny and Bob for all I care - the measurements are fine and they explain what they mean. But yeas DR is the number one important thing for landscape photographers and Sport score is related to noise not color bit depth, like you said, because sport photographers do care about high ISO performance. But again. it really doesnt mater what they call the scores.

That's why I recommended you trust them rather than DxoMark.

I would if they tested Pentax gear :/

[zapp]

How many of us Pentaxians knew well in advance about the KP? For me, the KP pretty much came out of nowhere. Pentax has done that a few times. Kept a tight lip (could be waiting for patent offices to sign off, who knows) and then pretty much announced specs right before the release. Everyone was in the dark before the official announcements. So, between R&D, engineering, marketing, designers, field testers, it doesn't matter. All that matters is that something IS coming.

Thath´s the way it works - you still want to sell K3 camera before announcing KPs. Problem is Pentax is slow with their announcements and not all new products replace existing prpducts.
Pentax announced some lenses recently DFA50, ... that appeared later than expected. I think they do well in holding back announcements until they are really ready. A lot of Things should be in the Pipeline right now!

[mecrox]

KP Mark II? In effect, whatever it is called. With latest electronics, better shutter and mirror assembly, better buffer, revised grip and bigger battery (maybe)? That would basically give a K1 but about one-third smaller and tie in with recent statements along the lines of "If you like the K1 ..."

[mille19]

KP Mark II? In effect, whatever it is called. With latest electronics, better shutter and mirror assembly, better buffer, revised grip and bigger battery (maybe)? That would basically give a K1 but about one-third smaller and tie in with recent statements along the lines of "If you like the K1 ..."

I don't think it will be a KP Mark II, I think the sales of the KP were disappointing so Pentax won't risk another KP.

[UlrichSchiegg]

I agree with this. Given the whole "situation" around the absence of a new APS-C wildlife/sports/birding and allround action photography capable flagship, it was not a pretty sound of silence during last Photokina. Time to revise their strategy for sure.

Chris

To allow competion to react n years before market release? And what is the benefit for Pentax in doing so? Potential customers for none existing products? To make some forum members happy?

[reh321]

I don't think it will be a KP Mark II, I think the sales of the KP were disappointing so Pentax won't risk another KP.

I basically agree. I like the smaller package - a good way for Pentax to compete with perceived advantages of MILC - but many seemingly-one-handed users want to 'balance' their longer lenses.
Users basically want the K-3 package - size, battery, top lcd, buffer, card slots - but Pentax can add prism box, AF, extra wheel from K-1, and perhaps even the hybrid viewfinder.

[reh321]

I agree with this. Given the whole "situation" around the absence of a new APS-C wildlife/sports/birding and allround action photography capable flagship, it was not a pretty sound of silence during last Photokina. Time to revise their strategy for sure.

To allow competion to react n years before market release? And what is the benefit for Pentax in doing so? Potential customers for none existing products? To make some forum members happy?

I don't understand how this is a response to Chris - you both are saying that Pentax needs to end their silence and say something to keep current K-7/5/3 users onboard.