[biz-engineer]

The Pentax M43 system would have thrived in such an environment. M4/3 compete with each other as the lens mount is universal.

Pentax historically failed at business strategy, Pentax was mostly driven by executives with engineering minds, it is evidenced in some of Pentax unique innovative features that failed to attract customer by the complete lack of communication.

Panasonic is a great subject for this thread as they are demoing/releasing their Lumix S Series full frame cameras this week.

Panasonics have waited exactly for C & N to drop their cards on the table, now, it's easy, they know what S, C & N offered in 2018 and they know that it will takes time for S, C & N to release the next model... perfect timing for Panasonic. Pentax completely failed on the timing of their product introduction, Pentax introduced the K1 months after the D810 was way into its life cycle, and just before Nikon release the D850, that's exactly how Pentax fail to have any strength of market penetration because they are often completely wrong at when they introduce their products. According to the Pentax K1 special site, saying that the making of the K1 was driven by the engineers and approved by executives, is the evidence that Pentax product introduction aren't decided by the market window of business opportunities. Basically, the K1 had the edge for 1 year, which basically is equivalent to say that Pentax only grabbed about 30% of the sales they could have made if they introduced the K1 right after the D800. Pentax engineers are good, Pentax cameras are good, but the management of the Pentax business is very questionable.

---

Last edited by biz-engineer; 01-07-2019 at 09:00 AM.

[RonHendriks1966]

Pentax historically failed at business strategy, Pentax was mostly driven by executives with engineering minds, it is evidenced in some of Pentax unique innovative features that failed to attract customer by the complete lack of communication.

They are missing out on the change towards mirrorless in the market right now!

[reh321]

4/3 system don't compete against each other they compete with each other. The Pentax M43 system would have thrived in such an environment. M4/3 compete with each other as the lens mount is universal. There would have been a lot of Olympus and Panasonic shooters using Pentax M4/3 lenses as this is were Pentax excels. Which would have been more than enough to sustain a Pentax Q M4/3 system.

To me "compete with" and "compete against" mean the same thing.

If Pentax had been third entry into MFT field, with camera built as "Q", I cannot think of any reason for someone to buy one .... I would have purchased Olympus MFT instead of Q MFT.

Issue with "Q" was lack of EVF - not innovative size of sensor.

[Kunzite]

If Pentax had been third entry into MFT field, with camera built as "Q", I cannot think of any reason for someone to buy one .... I would have purchased Olympus MFT instead of Q MFT.

I think you have a point here - a "4/3 Q" would not be a Q at all - but a completely different camera. They would have to put in more effort, and also in lenses; not likely, given that Q happened as Hoya was selling Pentax.

The Q system would still be thriving if they had used 4/3 sensor and M4/3 mount. As presented by Pentax the Q system was a dead end.

M4/3 sensors are much bigger than the Q or Q7s. The whole idea of the Q was to make a system that could use the inherent advantages of a small sensor (increased DOF, small telephotos and zooms, simple adaptation of c-mount and other lenses, leaf shutters) in a way that the M4/3 can only do awkwardly, if at all (I shudder every time I read about a M4/3 user butchering a classic cine lens to make it fit on a M4/3 only to find out it doesn't over the frame.) If the Nikon 1 had been built as a more open platform like the Q I think it might have had a better chance, the 1" seems to be a better solution for a compact-sensor camera—as the success of the Sony RX platform has proven (if only they made it with an interchangeable lens mount!)

[biz-engineer]

They are missing out on the change towards mirrorless in the market right now!

No it's too late for RI to start MILC now, they would miss the market window again if they changed their mind about DSLR. In business you have to anticipate what customers will want to buy in two years from now, because it takes about two years to design and qualify new products. When RI made the K1, there was zero modern FF K mount lens, it would have cost RI the same money to develop new lenses for a MILC mount instead of doing it for the K mount. But no! They spent the money for developing new lenses for the K mount, and half way through slow down on the lenses because either they have no money left on budget, or they realize maybe they got it wrong with the DSLR vs MILC decision. The problem is by changing their mind all the time, they never get the full ROI out of the business equation. At some point Ricoh Imaging decided to go the FF DSLR direction, now they have to finish the job.

[Kunzite]

It's not Ricoh Imaging; but people on the Internet changing their mind about what Ricoh Imaging should, or is doing.

[biz-engineer]

It's not Ricoh Imaging; but people on the Internet changing their mind about what Ricoh Imaging should, or is doing.

Nope. RI have to go to the end of the road they engage in: deploy prime lenses at reasonable speed, and not postpone all the time. Waiting doesn't improve ROI, it never has and never will, every new product that is not available for sale doesn't sell, so every missed opportunity of selling doesn't pay for the costs, that's the way businesses work. If a business wait until money is make to offer a product, they never will offer a new product, company must invest first, then customers buy, not the other way around.

[Rico]

Pentax historically failed at business strategy, Pentax was mostly driven by executives with engineering minds, it is evidenced in some of Pentax unique innovative features that failed to attract customer by the complete lack of communication.


Panasonics have waited exactly for C & N to drop their cards on the table, now, it's easy, they know what S, C & N offered in 2018 and they know that it will takes time for S, C & N to release the next model... perfect timing for Panasonic. Pentax completely failed on the timing of their product introduction, Pentax introduced the K1 months after the D810 was way into its life cycle, and just before Nikon release the D850, that's exactly how Pentax fail to have any strength of market penetration because they are often completely wrong at when they introduce their products. According to the Pentax K1 special site, saying that the making of the K1 was driven by the engineers and approved by executives, is the evidence that Pentax product introduction aren't decided by the market window of business opportunities. Basically, the K1 had the edge for 1 year, which basically is equivalent to say that Pentax only grabbed about 30% of the sales they could have made if they introduced the K1 right after the D800. Pentax engineers are good, Pentax cameras are good, but the management of the Pentax business is very questionable.

I don't think I agree with any of this.

The K-1 and now K-1MKII still have the edge over S N and C as they deliver the best image quality most especially when using Pixel-Shift. Using Pixel-Shift for product photography should be a boon for Pro-Shooters in this segment of the industry. Even Pro studio portrait photography can utilize the benefits of Pixel-Shift. In the not to distant past subjects were asked to sit as still as possible for 5 and 10 seconds. At normal shutter speeds Pixel-shift takes fractions of a second to capture the 4 stills. It just takes 5 seconds to write to the SD card due to the slow UHS-1 bus. But in the end a portrait taken with Pixel-Shift will deliver the best image quality for detailed printing which can be the edge against your local Pro Portrait studio competitor.

The timing of the K-1 was dependent on the timing of the development. What held back the K-1 in the Pro market is the slow operation of the K-1. What I mean hasn't anything to do with autofocus. In my experience Pentax autofocus isn't any different than how other brands autofocus behave. By slow I mean the K-1 is slow to respond. The screen is always flashing the whirling grey indicator due to the slow UHS-I bus. The system always seems to be trying to catch up which keeps the user waiting.

The K-1 main market isn't Pro users. The K-1 and Pentax over the last 20 years has been for advanced amateurs. The K-1 delivered for them. The K-1MKII raised the image quality. If Ricoh/Pentax didn't skimp on the storage bus Pro shooters would have considered the K-1/MKII as a viable option. If the K-3II had UHS-II it would be a viable Pro alternative.

Instead of the DFA*50 ƒ1.4 Ricoh/Pentax should have tweaked the DA*55 ƒ1.4 instead. This at least should have been part of the K-1 launch. People using Pentax and people that left other brands for Pentax came for the FA LTD's and DA LTD's. The vast majority of the K-mount user base are using these specific lenses. I don't see how lenses like the DFA* 50 ƒ1.4 and coming DFA*85 ƒ1.4 fit into this user base. I am not saying in any way these are bad lenses they certainly are excellent.

[BarneyL]

No it's too late for RI to start MILC now, they would miss the market window again.

It's not too late for their 645 line. They are obviously behind Fujifilm, but they can still board this ship, since medium format systems don't need bazillion lenses available on day one (especially when there are some legacy ones to choose from).

[biz-engineer]

The K-1 and now K-1MKII still have the edge over S N and C as they deliver the best image quality most especially when using Pixel-Shift.

Customers are leaving because:

- they don't rely on pixel shift as any tiny movement is problematic for it to provide superior resolution
- and the lack of prime lenses that they need
- auto-focus
- speed of operation / buffer

I can give three examples of forum members who left Pentax, no counting the PF member who quietly sold their K1 system in the market place..

Please give me pseudo-names of 3 new Pentax customers who came from S, or C or N in last quarter of 2018.

The timing of the K-1 was dependent on the timing of the development.

Yes, correct , and customers don't care about how long it takes to develop a new camera, customer look at options in the market and select what they want. It's not the job of customer to wait for the camera maker to deliver, it's up to the camera maker to deliver the product customer want to buy at the time they want to buy. Imagine you are thirsty, you order a bottle of water but the water company comes back with water the next day after you already got water some someone else.. too late. Timing is very important in business, timing is even more important that details of the product. Pentax customers are patient customer, they wait, but they don't wait two years for having a lens, come on!

[Kunzite]

Nope. RI have to go to the end of the road they engage in: deploy prime lenses at reasonable speed, and not postpone all the time. Waiting doesn't improve ROI, it never has and never will, every new product that is not available for sale doesn't sell, so every missed opportunity of selling doesn't pay for the costs, that's the way businesses work. If a business wait until money is make to offer a product, they never will offer a new product, company must invest first, then customers buy, not the other way around.

It might come to a surprise, but they know much more about running a photo gear business than the random guy on the Internet (I'm not saying they're perfect, by the way).

"Postpone all the time" means designing one of the best 50mm f/1.4 lens on the market, and fixing issues found at the last minute instead of releasing it with the issue uncorrected.
"Opportunity" means everything people can imagine - at least a dozen separate and conflicting directions. Except for what they're actually doing successfully.

An example - it was bad that Pentax didn't had lenses on the same level as Canikon's best; but the D FA* 50mm f/1.4 is too big, too expensive (!!!), and obviously there's a missed "opportunity" here, that is, to make lenses that are inferior to Canikon's best.

[biz-engineer]

but the D FA* 50mm f/1.4 is too big, too expensive (!!!),

I don't think so, I've seen the DFA*50 and it pairs well with the K1, but I have no use of 50mm, and a lot of customers share the same concern.

[caliscouser]

It's not Ricoh Imaging; but people on the Internet changing their mind about what Ricoh Imaging should, or is doing.

The needs of customers can change, the market changes. Ricoh Imaging don't seem to understand they are in the consumer electronics business.
They need to move quickly on their feet, adapt. If they have plans they need to execute them over a reasonable timescale.

They're not going to be one of the big boys, that's clear. The bean counters have clearly cut the product development pipeline to the bone.
In the short-term they probably need to identify some niches to exploit in a shrinking market and just focus on them.

Or figure out some low-cost product upgrades to do to give people a reason to open their wallets.

[Kunzite]

I don't think so, I've seen the DFA*50 and it pairs well with the K1, but I have no use of 50mm, and a lot of customers share the same concern.

A "missed opportunity", right?
Yet Ricoh Imaging did their homework and found out a 50mm f/1.4 was the most sought-after lens.