[Dan Rentea]

But who doesn't like a challenge?

Ricoh maybe? It seems that being present on the internet is not a prior challenge/concern to them. If I search something about Fuji, Sony, Nikon or Canon on Youtube, there are some ambassadors (official or unofficial) who post on regular basis different content about the gear they use (workshop feedbacks, comparasions, tips and tricks regarding settings or how to access some feature from the menu, etc.). Some of them are know photographers (Grant Atkinson, Jason Lanier, Zack Arias, etc.), some of them became known because of the Youtube videos and they do quite well in promoting a specific brand (Manny Ortiz is an example for Sony). Not to mention that the big boys have their own youtube channels were they post things that worth watching even if you're not commited to that brand (an example of a video that I've watched more than 4-5 times).

You Tube

You Tube

When I search Pentax, I see some videos from:
- Tony Northrup teaching me how to use K1 (he's making money with his videos while Ricoh can't hire a person to record the same thing. It doesn't have to be a fancy, it has to provide useful informations. Look at video tutorials about Af on Grant Atkinson channel. Nothing fancy, but man, there are a lot of good info there for wildlife shooters.
- PhotoUniverse who talk a lot and say nothing
- Te Camera Store TV (they have some decent reviews on Pentax)

So, I have to search very hard on Youtube to see something useful or interesting about Pentax. Pro photographers who are your target may or may not watch Youtube videos, but lots of photographers do. Ricoh Imaging has only 7,062 subscribers on Youtube and the last video uploaded by them was in 2017. That's quite sad.

If they ignore social media, internet and online marketing, I have a hard time to believe that they are going to attract many photographers to Pentax. Pentax forum is a very good marketing tool given the topics and the abundance of useful info, but I don't think that in 2018 it's enough, especialy when the lack of marketing presence is combined with the lack of Pentax products on the store shelves.

[fsge]

Many f/4 lenses have stellar IQ. They are definitely smaller than their f/2.8 siblings. And usually less expensive, which might be because the market demands that or because the elements are smaller to start with.
It used to be: f/2.8 glass = big, heavy, pro. f/4 glass = smaller, lighter, enthusiast or landscape. Variable aperture = cheap, lower quality for consumers. These days that seems to be blurring somewhat. The DFA 28-105 being a case in point. If it was f/4 everyone would have been happy. But it is a variable aperture so at first it was panned. Only after the results showed the stellar IQ was it accepted.

I have the DFA 24-70 f/2.8 but if a DFA 24-105 f/4 had been available I would not have even looked at the 24-70 I have no need for f/2.8 but I do need the IQ that is usually associated with the f/2.8 glass.

---------- Post added 02-28-18 at 05:41 PM ----------


Simple.
Potential sales of a 70-200 f/4 = many 1,000s
Potential sales of a 85 f/1.4 = many 100s

Trying to understand what Pentax does with the information available to the general public is only going to be frustrating. Not enough information to make an informed decision. Despite what the general public believes there is a sound business or engineering reason behind every decision.

What I meant is that, market sizing aside, 70-200f4 competes with 60-250, 70-200f2.8 and many copies from Sigma and Tamron. I dont have the feeling this f4 is a must have but I could well be mistaken
For 85mm lenses, it is a bit different as FA* is not available anymore, same for sigma EX so there is a stronger lack, portfolio wise. What do you think?

---------- Post added 03-01-2018 at 12:40 PM ----------

Not on a personal level, but know where they hide

Joke aside, is there any way I could liaise with any of them? Email / phone number? Even a small gun who could introduce...

[gazonk]

Im not. This lense means that the 85 is even more delayed. Does not make me happy!

Are you sure the 70-200/4 “steals” any development time from the 85/1.4? Maybe they need the time to make the 85 perfect anyway.

Anyway, I wish they had the ability to release tons of lenses within a very short time frame like they had when MX and ME were released back in 1976. AFAIR, they released an impressing amount of lenses in the new M-series together with the two cameras. I bought the MX one year later, and the plethora of lenses was an important reason for choosing Pentax, although, as a teenager, I would need some time before I could afford to buy my second lens (after the M-50/1.7 kit lens). Its limited lens options were my main reason for selling my Topcon Unirex and switch to Pentax instead of buying a second lens for the Topcon.

[Andrea K]

The DFA 28-105 being a case in point. If it was f/4 everyone would have been happy. But it is a variable aperture so at first it was panned. Only after the results showed the stellar IQ was it accepted.

Not everyone, I would have been happy if it started from 24mm.

[Chris Mak]

interesing black things

Other side of the lens reads something like 11-18.

That looks like a highly desirable combo!
Now who said that the KP cannot possibly be meant for this lens?
Fascinating that the new DA11-18 is on display on the ..... KP

[fsge]

That looks like a highly desirable combo!
Now who said that the KP cannot possibly be meant for this lens?
Fascinating that the new DA11-18 is on display on the ..... KP

I am changing my mind on the KP for 2 weeks maybe, have read dedicated part here, browsed pics, went in store to touch and feel... I was even about to buy one yesterday!
It is not a bad option to go for KP while waiting for upcoming flagship APSC, especially if the latter is due mid 2019 ; second hand KPs are now hitting the market with much more affordale prices.

[monochrome]

I don’t print for show, but I could. If I matte a few landscapes and rent a booth at the local Street Art Fair am I suddenly a pro?

Would using f-4 zooms for the landscapes change the answer?

[thibs]

That looks like a highly desirable combo!
Now who said that the KP cannot possibly be meant for this lens?
Fascinating that the new DA11-18 is on display on the ..... KP

Why would they promote such lens with a discontinued K3-II?

[ogl]

looks good

[Rondec]

I think we need to be honest that part of the reason that it is taking a long time to develop lenses for the lens line up is that they really are starting fresh. I don't know about the DFA 85, but even though they have had a lot of lenses in their portfolio over time, they aren't just updating those designs. Clearly that takes more time than just putting a new skin, coatings, motor, and a lens hood on the FA 50, for instance.

Most of the 50s in current operation have very long pedigrees and while their appearance has changed over time, optically they are very similar to the 50s that were out in the 70s and before. Pentax has set high standards here and part of that means completely new takes on classic focal lengths.

[Wheatfield]

Exactly..Thats why you have to be able to attract new users..And pros..that also will attract new consumers I work with this daily. Pentax have still a problem with be taken as serious as the big boys

The being taken seriously by the big boys boat has long since sailed.

[aslyfox]

I don’t print for show, but I could. If I matte a few landscapes and rent a booth at the local Street Art Fair am I suddenly a pro? . . .

if you sell something

I would say yes

others may disagree

[Kunzite]

I think we need to be honest that part of the reason that it is taking a long time to develop lenses for the lens line up is that they really are starting fresh. I don't about the DFA 85, but even though they have had a lot of lenses in their portfolio over time, they aren't just updating those designs. Clearly that takes more time than just putting a new skin, coatings, motor, and a lens hood on the FA 50, for instance.

Most of the 50s in current operation have very long pedigrees and while their appearance has changed over time, optically they are very similar to the 50s that were out in the 70s and before. Pentax has set high standards here and part of that means completely new takes on classic focal lengths.

This^^
They're not kidding when they're talking about "drastically reviewed internal standards in order to respond to future camera performance improvements". This is something that should've gradually happened under Hoya... but it didn't.

[normhead]

I don’t print for show, but I could. If I matte a few landscapes and rent a booth at the local Street Art Fair am I suddenly a pro?

IF you sell enough to make a difference to your life you are. The last time Tess and I exhibited, there were three other wannabe's who didn't sell enough to cover the cost of their booths. But they didn't care because they had received arts grants. There was one guy there who I would consider a working pro in that shooting and working the art fairs is his full time gig and he makes good money at it. But personally, I wouldn't consider myself a pro unless I was making enough money that I'd miss the income if I wasn't doing it. I don't think we've ever netted more than $3000 in a single year from our photography. (But then we also never spent more that 2 weekends in a year doing craft shows.) It is nice when we inadvertently fall into a couple hundred bucks from a print. Dinner and a few groceries.

How about this. "You are a pro if you've netted at least 5x more from your photography than your gear cost you."
The only way that works for me is if I get to count my income as a photography teacher.

[aslyfox]

IF you sell enough to make a difference to your life you are. The last time Tess and I exhibited, there were three other wannabe's who didn't sell enough to cover the cost of their booths. But they didn't care because they had received arts grants. There was one guy there who I would consider a working pro in that shooting and working the art fairs is his full time gig and he makes good money at it. But personally, I wouldn't consider myself a pro unless I was making enough money that I'd miss the income if I wasn't doing it. I don't think we've ever netted more than $3000 in a single year from our photography. (But then we also never spent more that 2 weekend in year doing craft shows.) It is nice when we inadvertently fall into a couple hundred bucks from a print. Dinner and a few groceries.

How about this. "You are a pro if you've netted at least 5x more from your photography than your gear cost you."
The only way that works for me is if I get to count my income as a photography teacher.

check with your tax preparer

but it used to be that you could deduct expenses as a business if you made a profit within 5 years

other wise the IRS considered it a hobby and you would have to repay the deducted expenses