[Wheatfield]

If they don't have their current customers then they didn't have any customers,it's not likely Pentax will be pulling customers from Sony, Canon, Fuji or Nikon

So you think they should flog products at below cost to keep capricious bargain basement customers happy?
Doing that is why Pentax is now just a name on a corporate door. Ricoh is not about to commit the same mistakes that make Pentax a rump division of their company.

[sculptor666]

can someone shoot this thread into the sun?

[Wheatfield]

Yes and no. I am less then 50, but first 10 or so years of my life was the rules of communism, another 10 was the transformation period where people were just poor and scraping money to live decently. Even now cameras are very expensive in Poland. My current K-50 price was, when I was buying it about 3-4 medium monthly salaries in Poland. Current K-1 Mk II is more or less same - 3-4 monthly salaries depending on region (I think it can go up to 5 in poorest ones). More or less. Camera bubble never hit this country, at least not as much as "west".

Besides I am not talking about how cheap or expensive current gear is, but that people are not willing - and they voiced it out in the K-3/3 price thread - to give more money for Pentax. I wonder if they will be willing to give more for Nikon or Sony, but that is another topic.


And also again - yeas, you are right that people who expected cheap gear dragged Pentax down (as Pentax was trying to live up to their expectations). But now, if it makes prices more realistic then it will have to rebuild the user base.

---------- Post added 03-17-21 at 07:49 AM ----------



I know that, I was saying the same in K-3/3 price thread. But how many current customers are thinking so and how many new will be willing to spent money on unknown gear with negative presence in social media?

If they aren't willing to spend money on Pentax, they will have the option of spending as much or more with a different brand.
Or goat yoga.

[c.a.m]

Ricoh Company faces several fundamental challenges. As noted by others, the dedicated-camera market has undergone a dramatic shift, and continues to evolve in the face of smartphone imaging, technology maturation, and product saturation. At the same time, Ricoh Company is changing their focus towards 'digital services', and has hinted that the Pentax and GR brands may be destined for a major change (or shake-up).

The idea that the Pentax brand should evolve towards a 'Leica-like' product line suggests that product quality, price, and customer support and service would need to increase significantly. However, this type of evolution would take time -- a high-end prestigious brand cannot be created overnight or at the flick of a PowerPoint slide.

I think that Ricoh Imaging carries some of the corporate, design, and technological 'DNA' or culture of previous incarnations (e.g., Pentax Corp, Asahi). Part of that inherent DNA includes designing good-quality products that can be sold at low- to mid-tier prices, which probably is no longer profitable. Evolving to a 'Leica-like' operation would require new design ethos, a shift in corporate and engineering culture, and courage.

So, the questions are:

• How could Ricoh re-orient their consumer camera business to align to Ricoh Company's new vision, and to achieve stability and profits in the medium term?
• How could they differentiate their (premium) products from other brands?
• How would their customer base change? Could they expect, or is it necessary, to retain their current base of "fans" (in the words of Ricoh's CEO)?

Edit: A further thought. Ricoh/Pentax already makes some great lenses -- modern and heritage. If the updated HD Pentax-FA 77mm Limited, for example, were priced at $2,000 or more, would that enhance the prestige of the lens, either to current Pentax users or to 'outsiders'?

- Craig

---

Last edited by c.a.m; 03-17-2021 at 09:38 AM.

[Dan]

...
The democratization of photography being something for the masses isn't ending, people will always have cell phones with ever increasingly sophisticated built in cameras, but going forward, if you want real camera gear, it is going to cost real money.

It depends on what you mean by "real money". All of the major mirrorless manufacturers offer affordable entry-level options, which I define as well under $1,000 (U.S.) for APS-C or well under $2,000 for full frame. Most of these are new or recent introductions. Let's look at some examples:

- Fujifilm just introduced the new and very capable XE-4 at a price of $850.

- Sony just introduced the very compact full-frame A7c, at a price of $1,800.

- Canon has a couple of full-frame mirrorless cameras, the RP and the R, that retail for $1,000 and $1,800 respectively.

- Nikon recently introduced the full frame Z-5 (with dual card slots, IBIS, and weather sealing) at a price of $1,300. They also offer the APS-C Z-50 at a price of $750.

Companies like Sony and Fuji are NOT just focusing on the high end. Moreover, third-party manufacturers such as Tamron have really stepped up their game, offering some good lenses at affordable prices, and promising more to come, in a wider variety of mounts.

One could easily argue that from the perspective of price-to-performance there has never been a better time to buy a new camera. My first digital camera was the *ist-D, for which I paid $1,250 (body only), and which had 6 megapixels, poor autofocus, and no shake reduction. At that price it was easily affordable--particularly in comparison with most of my other hobbies--but from a value perspective the current situation is rather incredible. Recent and future offerings may not be affordable for folks who are poor, but they are well within the reach of middle-class consumers.

Can these super good values continue? Probably not at these levels, but I expect that the surviving companies (such as Canon and Sony and maybe others) will continue to offer affordable options as a means of luring people into their systems. Entry-level gear plays an important strategic role in marketing. Such gear may not add directly to the bottom line, but it is important as a means of cultivating a base of users, SOME of whom will go on to buy more expensive gear. Of course most people who dabble in Canon or Sony will not become long-term customers who buy a lot of gear, but it is necessary to cast a wide net to create that loyal base of customers who will continue to spend. Dropping entry level gear does not strike me as a workable long-term strategy. Having said that, success in the long term relies on more than simply attracting users with low entry-level prices. While offering entry-level gear may be a necessary condition for success it is clearly not a sufficient condition.

Dan

[Wheatfield]

It depends on what you mean by "real money". All of the major mirrorless manufacturers offer affordable entry-level options, which I define as well under $1,000 (U.S.) for APS-C or well under $2,000 for full frame. Most of these are new or recent introductions. Let's look at some examples:

- Fujifilm just introduced the new and very capable XE-4 at a price of $850.

- Sony just introduced the very compact full-frame A7c, at a price of $1,800.

- Canon has a couple of full-frame mirrorless cameras, the RP and the R, that retail for $1,000 and $1,800 respectively.

- Nikon recently introduced the full frame Z-5 (with dual card slots, IBIS, and weather sealing) at a price of $1,300. They also offer the APS-C Z-50 at a price of $750.

Companies like Sony and Fuji are NOT just focusing on the high end. Moreover, third-party manufacturers such as Tamron have really stepped up their game, offering some good lenses at affordable prices, and promising more to come, in a wider variety of mounts.

One could easily argue that from the perspective of price-to-performance there has never been a better time to buy a new camera. My first digital camera was the *ist-D, for which I paid $1,250 (body only), and which had 6 megapixels, poor autofocus, and no shake reduction. At that price it was easily affordable--particularly in comparison with most of my other hobbies--but from a value perspective the current situation is rather incredible. Recent and future offerings may not be affordable for folks who are poor, but they are well within the reach of middle-class consumers.

Can these super good values continue? Probably not at these levels, but I expect that the surviving companies (such as Canon and Sony and maybe others) will continue to offer affordable options as a means of luring people into their systems. Entry-level gear plays an important strategic role in marketing. Such gear may not add directly to the bottom line, but it is important as a means of cultivating a base of users, SOME of whom will go on to buy more expensive gear. Of course most people who dabble in Canon or Sony will not become long-term customers who buy a lot of gear, but it is necessary to cast a wide net to create that loyal base of customers who will continue to spend. Dropping entry level gear does not strike me as a workable long-term strategy. Having said that, success in the long term relies on more than simply attracting users with low entry-level prices. While offering entry-level gear may be a necessary condition for success it is clearly not a sufficient condition.

Dan

I think I addressed this a few posts ago with the comment about picking the remaining meat off the bones of a dead horse.
Entry level gear needs high sales volumes to be profitable. Without that, the ROI isn't ever going to be there.
Poor ROI isn't something shareholders will tolerate for very many quarters.
With overall sales in freefall, high sales volumes are not going to be there to support entry level in the long term.
Historically, entry level gear has been the profit driver allowing higher end gear to exist in the first place. Entry level has always kept the door open. Canon didn't stay in the business selling EOS1 cameras, they did it by selling Rebels.
Dropping entry level gear may not be a workable long term strategy, but losing money on a product line is proven to be a non workable long term strategy.

[hoosierdome]

I Love how everyone is a CEO and has the whole camera industry figured out.

[Dan]

I think I addressed this a few posts ago with the comment about picking the remaining meat off the bones of a dead horse.
Entry level gear needs high sales volumes to be profitable. Without that, the ROI isn't ever going to be there.
Poor ROI isn't something shareholders will tolerate for very many quarters.
With overall sales in freefall, high sales volumes are not going to be there to support entry level in the long term.
Historically, entry level gear has been the profit driver allowing higher end gear to exist in the first place. Entry level has always kept the door open. Canon didn't stay in the business selling EOS1 cameras, they did it by selling Rebels.
Dropping entry level gear may not be a workable long term strategy, but losing money on a product line is proven to be a non workable long term strategy.

Your take on Canon's situation is completely at odds with their recent corporate reports for their imaging division, for the fiscal year ending Dec 2020. In spite of reporting a sharp drop in unit camera sales, this division continued to be profitable, which they attribute to two factors: sales of their new high-margin Canon R5 and R6 cameras and continued profitability of their inkjet printers including consumables (such as ink cartridges). Indeed, not only did profits remain positive, they actually INCREASED this past year which they attribute solely to the new products:

"income before income taxes [in the imaging division] increased by 43.1% year-on-year to ¥71.1billion thanks to improvements in profitability due to the effect of new products."
(source: https://global.canon/en/ir/results/2020/rslt2020e.pdf)

The only new products that they discuss in this context are the EOS R5 and R6. So not only are these new cameras profitable, according to this report they are sufficiently profitable to offset an overall decline in unit camera sales. Their outlook calls for unit sales to finally stabilize this year. We will see, but given the success of their new product offerings Canon is not the camera company that you should be worried about. In spite of declining sales of the Rebel.

Dan

[Serkevan]

It's important to note that MILCs are much cheaper to make than DSLRs, so at the same sale prices the manufacturer gets a pretty penny on top due to increased margins. That means that manufacturers can afford to undercut DSLRs, if only by a bit (or sell at the same price while needing much less volume, which is what we're seeing. Bonus points if you sell a cheaper product as a better, more expensive product because of whatever reason).

[reh321]

The only new products that they discuss in this context are the EOS R5 and R6. So not only are these new cameras profitable, according to this report they are sufficiently profitable to offset an overall decline in unit camera sales. Their outlook calls for unit sales to finally stabilize this year. We will see, but given the success of their new product offerings Canon is not the camera company that you should be worried about. In spite of declining sales of the Rebel.

Dan

The least expensive MILC in their "FF" line is the 'RP', which costs about $1K from B&H.

Right now that is not an issue, but the question is whether the EOS-M line {which starts around $700 at B&H} will be enough to keep their name in front of the public in future years

[biz-engineer]

I Love how everyone is a CEO and has the whole camera industry figured out.

Yes.

Poor ROI isn't something shareholders will tolerate for very many quarters.

Low end product and high-end product often deliver the maximum ROI. That's because an entry level product that seem generate a loss, actually contribute to load production lines, which offset fixed costs, so that when the high-end product is added to the mix, the combination of both low-end and high-end product is more profitable that the high-end only product. That's why two types of costs are being considered: total unit cost and marginal unit cost. So basically, you could lower the price just above the marginal cost on the low cost product and still generate a higher total profit than having just one high end product for sale, even if the low-end product looks like it's making a loss when accounted alone. I believe Canon are just doing that.

[gatorguy]

Your take on Canon's situation is completely at odds with their recent corporate reports for their imaging division, for the fiscal year ending Dec 2020. In spite of reporting a sharp drop in unit camera sales, this division continued to be profitable, which they attribute to two factors: sales of their new high-margin Canon R5 and R6 cameras and continued profitability of their inkjet printers including consumables (such as ink cartridges). Indeed, not only did profits remain positive, they actually INCREASED this past year which they attribute solely to the new products:

"income before income taxes [in the imaging division] increased by 43.1% year-on-year to ¥71.1billion thanks to improvements in profitability due to the effect of new products."
(source: https://global.canon/en/ir/results/2020/rslt2020e.pdf)

The only new products that they discuss in this context are the EOS R5 and R6. So not only are these new cameras profitable, according to this report they are sufficiently profitable to offset an overall decline in unit camera sales. Their outlook calls for unit sales to finally stabilize this year. We will see, but given the success of their new product offerings Canon is not the camera company that you should be worried about. In spite of declining sales of the Rebel.

Dan

"For interchangeable-lens digital cameras, although unit sales were below those of the previous year, sales were better than expected in the second half of the year due to strong sales of the EOS R5 and EOS R6 full-frame mirrorless cameras."
Canon doesn't break out sales/profits of ILC's from the total "Imaging System Business Division" results which includes printers/scanners/ink, but they do specifically point out that sales were better than expected in the second half of the year. I don't know whether they had ever announced to investors what those expectations were.

[reh321]

Dropping entry level gear may not be a workable long term strategy, but losing money on a product line is proven to be a non workable long term strategy.

but losing money on an "entry" line may be a needed way of keeping your name in front of the public, a necessary part of marketing {which Canon has shown themselves to be very good at}.

[Tesla]

I don't know the market, but I envision something like this:

Ditch MF. I believe the competition has advanced too far for Pentax to catch up and make a profit.


DSLR

2 FF - one low mp, and one high mp

2 APS - a flagship, and an entry level

Mirrorless
1 FF (add a second model a few years later)


Put them on a 5 year cycle.

I think it would be a mistake to get out of the entry level market.

Not an expert, just an opinion.

[reh321]

I don't know the market, but I envision something like this:

Ditch MF. I believe the competition has advanced too far for Pentax to catch up and make a profit.


DSLR

2 FF - one low mp, and one high mp

2 APS - a flagship, and an entry level

Mirrorless
1 FF (add a second model a few years later)


Put them on a 5 year cycle.

I think it would be a mistake to get out of the entry level market.

Not a expert, just an opinion.

The question is where do you set your "entry level"?
If Pentax truly aspires to be a "premium" brand, something like the current KP might be entirely appropriate