[reh321]

I do believe that soon enough the technology within cameras that are two or three generations behind the leaders will be more than sufficient for most photographers. (if it isn't already)

That depends on what you look at; they are behind the leaders in focusing, but they are ahead of the leaders when you consider graceful high ISO performance.

[BROO]

That depends on what you look at; they are behind the leaders in focusing, but they are ahead of the leaders when you consider graceful high ISO performance.

That is what I mean. We all know that Pentax has many class leading features. So instead of moaning about some reviews, we should just get on and use these strengths to our advantage by taking good photos.

[Class A]

I guess I am talking less about the brand strategy and more about our individual strategy to create good images.

Yes, I know, and I already said that I'm in agreement with you as far as our individual strategies are concerned.

If others want to buy a DPR recommendation then good for them.

Yes, but if everyone buys something else, it is bad for us.

Ricoh will not maintain the Pentax brand for just a few customers.

I really don't think they need to produce many more lenses.

Well, there are a number of people who actually would like to use lenses that don't exist right now (wide-angle primes are often mentioned), plus it hurts the brand (and hence ultimately its users) if websites like DPReview keep harping on the fact that the "lens selection is limited". The latter observation is not an incentive for a potential customer to commit to a Pentax system.

I do believe that soon enough the technology within cameras that are two or three generations behind the leaders will be more than sufficient for most photographers.

Be that as it may, many people will go with the latest and greatest or follow the recommendation of a "leading website". The few who think for themselves will not be enough to sustain the brand. There is a reason why companies compete with respect to specifications and why they spend considerable money on advertising. Having a product that is "more than sufficient" is not enough, particularly not in a dramatically shrinking market. Note that @Mistral75 pointed out that the Pentax customer base is "ageing". That's my perception as well and if the customer base is not replenished at a sufficient rate with younger customers, the brand has a problem.

So instead of moaning about some reviews, we should just get on and use these strengths to our advantage by taking good photos.

It's not an "either or" decision.

I, for one, make images with my Pentax gear on a pretty regular basis. That doesn't stop me from being concerned with how the Pentax brand is perceived by potential customers visiting DPReview, not receiving the information they should get.

If websites make customers buy Pentax products

1. it helps Ricoh to invest more into R&D.
2. it helps us by allowing more products to be released more frequently and with better technology.
3. it helps increasing the odds that we'll be able to buy Pentax products for a long time to come.
4. it creates more happy photographers, as they get to enjoy Pentax products as much as we do.

So what's not to like about websites giving Pentax a fair deal?

[BROO]

So what's not to like about websites giving Pentax a fair deal?

It is simple marketing, money and politics.Website reviewers are looking after the big $$.

Sounds like you should just buy into one of the big brands and be happy?

[monochrome]

It is simple marketing, money and politics.Website reviewers are looking after the big $$.

Sounds like you should just buy into one of the big brands and be happy?

Dude. I don’t think you are hearing what .@Class A. is saying (that’s polite for LISTEN). Don’t Troll Hammer Class A of all people. He isn’t, and you haven’t earned it.

Ricoh should invest enough money in the Pentax brand to raise the image identity, inspire confidence in the future, properly market the products to stimulate sales and raise prices enough to first get their investment back, then pay for future marketing. That includes doing a proper job marketing to DPR even if that only gets them neutral reviews.

Great products don’t sell themselves. This is how you lose Ambassadors.

[Kunzite]

That includes doing a proper job marketing to DPR even if that only gets them neutral reviews.

I don't think that's possible without putting them in red, and I doubt it's worth the effort.
And I definitely don't like the idea of paying for those guys to have fun in exotic locations.

[monochrome]

I don't think that's possible without putting them in red, and I doubt it's worth the effort.
And I definitely don't like the idea of paying for those guys to have fun in exotic locations.

Investment is distinct from operating loss <in the red>.

O

[Kunzite]

Investment is distinct from operating loss <in the red>.

O

What I'm saying is that the cost of making DPR happy might be disproportionately large - and that includes the cost of making "suitable" cameras (say, outdo Panasonic/Sony/Canon at video, or dropping their user base in order to launch a mirrorless system) and much larger marketing expenses.

Maybe I'm too pessimistic; but seeing how they treated the D FA* 50mm f/1.4, not without reason.

[Mistral75]

Investment is distinct from operating loss <in the red>.

O

Indeed but, if you capitalise some marketing expenditures, you must then depreciate them over a certain period of time (a few years), therefore it's reculer pour mieux sauter as we say in French (take a step back in order to take a bigger jump forward, put off the inevitable).

[monochrome]

Indeed but, if you capitalise some marketing expenditures, you must then depreciate them over a certain period of time (a few years), therefore it's reculer pour mieux sauter as we say in French (take a step back in order to take a bigger jump forward, put off the inevitable).

It just feels like if they don’t invest something it means the operation is in a run-off, regardless of the brand or corporate name.

[Mikesul]

This is what frustrates some users. Pentax is a small brand but Ricoh is a large company. They could invest more in Pentax but by not doing so it makes many believe there is no future. But is seems to me that the steady, if glacially slow, release of products over the past few years indicates just a very cautious commitment to Pentax but a commitment none the less.

[david94903]

Pentax is a small brand but Ricoh is a large company. They could invest more in Pentax but by not doing so it makes many believe there is no future. But is seems to me that the steady, if glacially slow, release of products over the past few years indicates just a very cautious commitment to Pentax but a commitment none the less.

Well, large or not, it's not like Ricoh has been releasing new camera models under the Ricoh brand name any quicker. Just look at the GR series releases. I think slow and steady is their business model no matter what the product.

[Class A]

Dude. I don’t think you are hearing what .@Class A. is saying (that’s polite for LISTEN). Don’t Troll Hammer Class A of all people. He isn’t, and you haven’t earned it.

Ricoh should invest enough money in the Pentax brand to raise the image identity, inspire confidence in the future, properly market the products to stimulate sales and raise prices enough to first get their investment back, then pay for future marketing. That includes doing a proper job marketing to DPR even if that only gets them neutral reviews.

Great products don’t sell themselves. This is how you lose Ambassadors.

Sorry for quoting your post in full, but I think it is all worth repeating. Thank you.

BTW, personally, I'm not suggesting that Ricoh should pander to DPReview. If Ricoh decides that there shouldn't be a record button for movie recording, but that they rather make that functionality available via a mode switch and the shutter release button, I think they should stick with that decision and not change it just because DPReview couldn't think of anything more sensible to put into the "Cons" section than "No dedicated movie shooting button".

FWIW, tying the start of a video recording to the shutter release button, makes it possible to start a video remotely, via a standard remote or even radio trigger.

There are other aspects where DPReview is simply amateurish in their assessment and I don't think Ricoh should try to meet them at their level.

However, I think I'm not alone in believing that there is too little advertising for Pentax products which also has repercussions on how publications treat the brand. It furthermore saddens me how the unacceptable New Zealand distributor for Pentax has not been addressed by Ricoh. Yes, the land of the long white cloud is not a big market, but Ricoh could easily sell many more cameras and lenses if it weren't for this horrible distributor who managed to annoy all the few shops that used to carry Pentax equipment to the point that you no longer see Pentax products on any shelves and the store staff are actively discouraging customers from getting Pentax products due to the useless distributor.

Would it cost a lot of money to find another distributor? Wouldn't it be cost neutral to just move the distribution to CRK (who also have a presence in New Zealand for Sigma lenses)? The fact that nothing is happening tells me that a) either Ricoh is not really keen on selling as many Pentax products as they could, or b) the Japanese culture forbids them to cut ties with a previous partner, even when that partner only had been great in the past but now has become a detriment to their brand.

[Mistral75]

(...) The fact that nothing is happening tells me that a) either Ricoh is not really keen on selling as many Pentax products as they could, or b) the Japanese culture forbids them to cut ties with a previous partner, even when that partner only had been great in the past but now has become a detriment to their brand.

Does the NZ distributor belong to a family, to the same family since ages? If so, (b) is likely.

[Kunzite]

This is what frustrates some users. Pentax is a small brand but Ricoh is a large company. They could invest more in Pentax but by not doing so it makes many believe there is no future. But is seems to me that the steady, if glacially slow, release of products over the past few years indicates just a very cautious commitment to Pentax but a commitment none the less.

It is indeed frustrating - it would be much better (for me at least) if they'll release a few nice products within the year.

OTOH, about believing there is no future... Olympus is investing a lot more in their Imaging division, and that attracted the attention of their shareholders - it's losing tons of money.