[Mistral75]

Even if that's true it's still a separate production line AND it's low volume.

A monochrome GR III wouldn't be different from what prevailed at the time of the K-5 II / K-5 IIs couple: two very similar cameras, the only difference being the presence / absence of a specific filter in front of the sensor chip: colour filter array in the case of the GR III / GR IIIm and anti-aliasing filter in the case of the K-5 II / K-5 IIs.

The K-5 IIs was only $100 more expensive than the K-5 II at launch.

[ZombieArmy]

A monochrome GR III wouldn't be different from what prevailed at the time of the K-5 II / K-5 IIs couple: two very similar cameras, the only difference being the presence / absence of a specific filter in front of the sensor chip: colour filter array in the case of the GR III / GR IIIm and anti-aliasing filter in the case of the K-5 II / K-5 IIs.

The K-5 IIs was only $100 more expensive than the K-5 II at launch.

That's fine but Ricoh had the expectation that the camera would sell (relatively) well. It's economies of scales. Ricoh would not expect a niche feature on an already niche camera to sell all that well so their order would be small compared to mid range apsc camera in the hayday of DSLRs.

[Mistral75]

That's fine but Ricoh had the expectation that the camera would sell (relatively) well. It's economies of scales. Ricoh would not expect a niche feature on an already niche camera to sell all that well so their order would be small compared to mid range apsc camera in the hayday of DSLRs.

In Ricoh Imaging's land, the GR III is not a niche camera. Together with the Theta, it's the product that maintained Smart Vision afloat until the Covid-19 outbreak.

Anyway, I agree that a hypothetical GR IIIm would sell less, in comparison with the GR III, than the K-5 IIs in comparison with the K-5 II. That's the reason why I made the assumption that such monochrome camera might be priced up to $200 higher than the regular model, whereas the K-5 IIs was only priced $100 higher than the K-5.

However, I still see no reason why, and no possibility that, the GR IIIm would be 'close to twice the price', i.e. almost $900 more expensive than the GR III.

I therefore stand by my earlier statement:

I agree with a hypothetical GR IIIm being priced a bit higher than the regular GR III, because of (i) higher sensor costs due to lower volumes (still under $100 though), (ii) the incremental costs associated with a specific SKU and (iii) Ricoh Imaging seeking higher unit margins from this niche, low-volume product.

However, all the above doesn't justify a doubled price. $100 or $200 more, why not. Twice the price, definitely not.

[Rondec]

I imagine Ricoh will price a monochrome GR III for whatever price they think will get them the most money and still sell the expected number of units. They'll probably start at the top end of things and lower the price a bit over time -- that seems to be the way these things usually work.

[Smolk]

What would the sensor cost relative to the camera? Perhaps twice the price refers to the sensor alone.

[Zygonyx]

Oh well, i just pre-ordered the GR IIIx to help them financing all these lenses construction

[ZeGaby]

Oh well, i just pre-ordered the GR IIIx to help them financing all these lenses construction

That's why they ask about a 28mm lenses ? 😉😉😁
https://twitter.com/ricohimaging_jp/status/1439418981115301893?s=19

[Smolk]

That's why they ask about a 28mm lenses ? 😉😉😁
https://twitter.com/ricohimaging_jp/status/1439418981115301893?s=19

Not for the GR3x but the GR3M.

[normhead]

The numbers are so low it almost doesn't matter as you can't even make a statistical ballpark guess. All those numbers say is that Fuji is maybe more hip with those who use Flickr.
Pentax's 645 offering has been on the market substantially longer, it's difficult/impossible to say which has more prominent marketshare overall.

Not that it actually matters I'm sure; if Ricoh honestly felt there was a substantial enough market to get the big margins out of the pros for medium format they'd be putting more into it. It doesn't matter much if Fuji is eating their lunch if the mayo on it is expired.

I think I requested that you suggest something better if you don't like those numbers. Always take numbers over opinion, always use the the numbers you have, until you find better. Dismiss unsupported opinions out right. Why you think what you think is as important as what you think.

I don't form my opinions and then look for numbers, I use numbers to form my opinions. And I definitely only use real numbers that are compiled without bias. Not opinions that are little more than an expression of bias.

Hence my use of the phrase "blah, blah, blah."

I never said my numbers were definitive. But at least they weren't complete made up nonsense. I had two facts to work with, not based on someone's opinion. I always wonder when I make this kind of call based on limited facts, people feel inclined to comment based on no facts, only speculation. As if somehow their lack of rigour and speculation in some way compares to unbiased fact based research.

[ZombieArmy]

I think I requested that you suggest something better if you don't like those numbers. Always take numbers over opinion, always use the the numbers you have, until you find better. Dismiss unsupported opinions out right. Why you think what you think is as important as what you think.

I don't form my opinions and then look for numbers, I use numbers to form my opinions. And I definitely only use real numbers that are compiled without bias. Not opinions that are little more than an expression of bias.

Hence my use of the phrase "blah, blah, blah."

I never said my numbers were definitive. But at least they weren't complete made up nonsense. I had two facts to work with, not based on someone's opinion. I always wonder when I make this kind of call based on limited facts, people feel inclined to comment based on no facts, only speculation. As if somehow their lack of rigour and speculation in some way compares to unbiased fact based research.

Bad numbers are worse than mere speculation as presenting data implies some authoritative sway. Your numbers show nothing, it would be misleading to suggest otherwise.

I also did not once in my post imply that I had an answer for who had more marketshare, no opinion one way or the other since the only people with definitive data on these things work at those companies and won't divulge them to us.
My only speculation was that Ricoh isn't working on MF for some reason. Perhaps they know something bad about it about it that we don't.

[mbukal]

normhead / ZombieArmy / .....No matter how you talk about positioning Pentax in the use of photographic equipment,Pentax is in every respect a weak opposition to the dominant position of the current positioning which dictates the manner and pace of photographic equipment (lag in full production = small quantities and cameras and lenses in quantity and choice and innovation which are very important for photography), happiness, and even what little has been done, is intended for enthusiasts / advanced users and a few professionals who are loyal to old Pentax schools with satisfactory quality compromises known to them, today's new users are reluctant or rarely want to agree to compromise on Pentax when they decide to spend money on photographic equipment given what is offered in the photo market, either you have to fit into the leading majority or as a minority you have to have a tangible quality that the majority lacks , not coping with that positioning depends about further survival one who has been in opposition for some long time

[texandrews]

and participated several times. I'm completely overwhelmed at work right now through the early part of next week. So I've had my head down.


But I'm ducking in today to say that it's just astonishing to me how some snippets of what I took to be very welcome news could be interpreted so negatively. A very unusual Pentax phenomenon. I get it over at the infamous DPR with its brigades of trolls and and anti-social misfits. But here it truly bewilders me---I mean, to be a Pentaxian you've got to be a bit of a fan, otherwise why choose such a contrarian brand? And it's not as though I have high confidence in the posters' experience and insights into corporate and corporate subsidiary's economics, balance sheets, P/L ratios, & etc., and especially Japanese ones which are a case unto themselves...

Very curious.

[Wheatfield]

normhead / ZombieArmy / .....No matter how you talk about positioning Pentax in the use of photographic equipment, Pentax is in every way a weak contrast to the dominant position of the existing position which dictates the way and pace of photographic equipment (lag in full production = small quantities and cameras and lenses in quantity and choice and innovation which are very important for photography), happiness, and even what little has been done, is intended for enthusiasts / advanced users and a few professionals who are loyal to old Pentax schools with satisfactory quality compromises known to them, today's new users are reluctant or rarely want to agree to compromise on Pentax when they decide to spend money on photographic equipment given what is offered in the photo market, or you have to fit into the leading majority or you have to have a tangible quality that the majority lacks as a minority, not coping with that positioning depends about further survival one who has been in opposition for some long time

One wonders how Leica survived for 50 years making rangefinder cameras that were completely out of touch with the market and a few overpriced, under specified SLRs.
As it turns out, Pentax is able to sell everything they make. The waiting list for the D FA* 50/1.4 was months long, as it was for the D FA* 85/1.4.
Both lenses sold out their initial production runs prior to release. With the 50/1.4, there were users waiting until the third run to get their lens.

The go big or go home attitude is what has gotten companies like Nikon into deep water.

To be blunt, your posts smack of trolling (as well as being difficult to decipher). As such, I will endeavor to not respond to you again. I suggest if you are so dissatisfied with the Pentax brand, you find a brand you can live with and a dedicated forum you can be happy with.

As an aside, and to try to be somewhat on topic, this new Ricoh GR3X looks like a camera I could be interested in. The lens is a little short for my taste, but is eminently usable.

[mbukal]

One wonders how Leica survived for 50 years making rangefinder cameras that were completely out of touch with the market and a few overpriced, under specified SLRs.
As it turns out, Pentax is able to sell everything they make. The waiting list for the D FA* 50/1.4 was months long, as it was for the D FA* 85/1.4.
Both lenses sold out their initial production runs prior to release. With the 50/1.4, there were users waiting until the third run to get their lens.

The go big or go home attitude is what has gotten companies like Nikon into deep water.

To be blunt, your posts smack of trolling (as well as being difficult to decipher). As such, I will endeavor to not respond to you again. I suggest if you are so dissatisfied with the Pentax brand, you find a brand you can live with and a dedicated forum you can be happy with.

As an aside, and to try to be somewhat on topic, this new Ricoh GR3X looks like a camera I could be interested in. The lens is a little short for my taste, but is eminently usable.

Wheatfield English is not my mother tongue ... but I try to purposefully participate in the discussion, and where did you get the conclusion that I am depressed (or troll) about Pentax that you recommend changing Pentax, you misunderstood my post and even worse made the final conclusion, let's talk argumentatively about Pentax ,other names I neither listed nor am interested in , let's talk about what Pentax can provide and what it provides as a whole in its offer of photo equipment, please no hard feelings in any form because as members of this forum and users Pentax we need to talk with arguments

[ZombieArmy]

(lag in full production = small quantities and cameras and lenses in quantity and choice and innovation which are very important for photography)

I disagree with this entirely. I actually think the big companies are struggling because people don't update their cameras as much because the "innovation" doesn't actually translate to many real world tangible benefits. Cameras for stills have barely improved, any changes are minor these days. Longer cycles in this case is actually a huge benefit, as much as certain people may not be happy with that in their insatiable need to spend money with this arrangement. And unlike the phone industry you can't basically make your product explode in 2 years or seal in the battery because no one would buy your product.

As for lenses... Once you have an excellent lineup it won't matter how long it took you to get there. And I'd say that Ricoh has been shaping up the top end extremely well.