Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-17-2010, 03:41 PM   #211
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Charlotte, NC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 886
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
Well, it is a hyperbole
I can elaborate, all right. The K-7&K-x duo is quite successful, as we know; the K-x was the 3rd best selling DSLR or EVIL in Japan, in December. And right now I see the K-7 twice on the amazon.co.jp top 25 DSLRs, on #7 and #9 - that means it's not selling that bad, either (even though it couldn't make 1.3% on 2009 - again, the Japanese market).
Then, shouldn't they continue with this strategy, i.e. new products: cameras (K-7&K-x replacements), lenses, accessories? People started to realize Pentax makes good DSLRs; shouldn't Pentax give them exactly that?
I don't think anyone wants Pentax to stop making DSLR's, but exactly how many DSLR's does one company need to make? If you ask me Canon and Sony both make too many as it is. I think DSLR technology is really close to plateauing and very soon there will be few compelling reasons to upgrade. Once upon a time a film SLR could have a product run of 5+ years because there was no need to replace it (The Nikon F3 was produced for 20 years). DSLR's will be very similar to that soon. Can anyone think of any reason to upgrade from a D3s for example?

That said, I don't see how it would be very taxing on Pentax's R&D budget to produce minor upgrades to the K-7 and K-x. I don't give a crap about the K-x to be honest (plastic cameras with pentamirrors aren't my thing), so I won't speculate on it, but as far as the K-7; well, I guess a better low light image sensor could be added, a larger view finder, faster continuous AF, better live view, and better video. All those things are welcome upgrades, but the K7 is an excellent camera as is and I see no reason to replace it until Photokina at the earliest. If the K7 can't capture your vision then you're simply doing something wrong. However, there is one area in the DSLR market where Pentax needs a upgrade/presence; full frame. If they want to produce a full frame DSLR instead of an EVIL then I'm all for that. A digital version of the Pentax LX is my dream camera. And when I say digital LX I mean digital LX. No front grip, no top LCD, no bulk, no junk features. I'm ok with them adding AF and a rear thumb dial to control aperture on new lenses, but that's it. The digital world needs a true affordable alternative to the M9.

01-17-2010, 04:39 PM   #212
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,230
Pentax currently have 2 DSLRs, and they will soon add a third (the 645D). That's the bare minimum.
I too hope the market will allow longer development cycles; I fear however this will not be the case, and we'll see irrelevant upgrades over and over.
I'm not sure though what you say about the K-7 replacement (another sensor, possible not Samsung; larger viewfinder = redesigned body; faster, better LV&video) would count as a "minor upgrade", and the implementation effort I don't think it's anywhere near trivial. I'd also bet on Photokina, as now they seem busy with the 645D.
01-18-2010, 12:02 AM   #213
juu
Veteran Member
juu's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 680
It's hard for us not in electronics design to understand what are major and what are minor redesigns.

Is a sensor replacement minor? I guess if it has same interface but more resolution you cannot just swap it out, because you need to upgrade other components to support the higher bandwidths required, otherwise an upgrade from 12 MP to 18 MP would see burst rates go down 1.5 times and that wouldn't go down well. Is it still minor even concidering that? It might be, as Pentax probably just buys these components anyway and can just buy the newer versions instead, but the devil is in the details and issues are bound to pop up.

It's also not clear how much are R&D bottlenecks and how much are assembly line bottlenecks. Sony can produce 10+ (?) IL cameras at once. Can Pentax produce 4 (Kx, K7, K-EVIL, 645D)? I don't remember what's the most they've had at once before.

Last edited by juu; 01-18-2010 at 12:17 AM.
01-18-2010, 01:25 AM   #214
Pentaxian
johnmflores's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Somerville, NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,148
Forget it Pentax, you're taking too long. I'm gonna build my own EVIL, just like this guy:




My Point and shoot with interchangable lens, My project - Photo.net Digital Cameras Forum



01-18-2010, 02:08 AM   #215
juu
Veteran Member
juu's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 680
Thanks for sharing. Pentax should hire that guy.
01-18-2010, 07:18 AM   #216
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 10,131
QuoteOriginally posted by juu Quote

First, how did you manage to turn DSLRs into a bad deal for consumers if you yourself just said that "they offered photographers a very real and tangible benefit, which was that they could control their entire process from start to finish"? There have obviously numerous other benefits as referenced here.
DSLRs weren't introduced yesterday. You've moved the time line 10 years in an attempt to score a debating point.
I'm calling you on this one.
QuoteQuote:

Second, assuming the market is sufficiently competitive, anything that is a good deal for the manufacturers by cutting their costs also becomes a good deal for the consumer, by cutting the prices.
Actually, what is good for manufacturers is good for manufacturers.
If it is good for consumers too, then it's completely by chance.



QuoteQuote:
That sounds like a conspiracy theory. In reality, they will only stop making DSLRs when people stop buying them. Now, there are some economy of scale issues but overall, if DSLRs will no longer be made it will be because people aren't buying them.

And people won't be buying them generally because they will like their EVILs better.
Wrong. They will stop making DSLR camera when they feel they can get away with stopping them for something cheaper for them to make. The consumer won't have any choice at all in the matter. The consumer will buy what is available, the manufacturer will decide what is available.

QuoteQuote:
What about better sensors, metering or auto-focus?
What about them? They don't have anything to do with viewfinders.
QuoteQuote:
Are you seriously suggesting that the best camera in 1935 took better pictures than, say, a ? And if so, what was it, and are you shooting with one now?
Now you've moved the timeline 75 years to try to score debating points.
This is pretty retarded.
I really think you should just go back, reread what you are replying to and stop with the childish nonsense.

QuoteQuote:
Didn't you just argue that (I quote) "colour TVs represented a very real technological improvement over B&W, that being a colour picture"? So is colour in photographs an improvement overall or not?
Again, you are quoting out of context.
Go back and try again.
I'm not here to give English lessons.

QuoteQuote:
I don't get that part. Have you heard of backups and photo sharing sites?
Thats the major intervention part.
I have 12 hard drives in 3 arrays saying i won't lose digital data.
I also have probably 100,000 negatives that are happily sitting in sleeves in dry storage.
Guess which ones are likely to last out the long haul if I stop maintaining my digital archive.

Have you not heard of a box of negatives under the bed?
Conventional film based images will survive benign neglect. Digital images require a tremendous level of pro-activeness on the part of the user.
Digital storage is a lot of work compared to film if you want digital to last.
I lost more digital files through a bad batch of Verbatim CDs than I've lost in 30 years of film photography.

QuoteQuote:

Yes and no. Consumers are certainly sheep, however somehow this flock of sheep has generally pushed companies to produce better products.
Really? We've actually been pushing for cheaper products.

QuoteQuote:
And quality is certainly subjective - to you all that seemingly matters is the ultimate image and viewfinder quality while the average consumer cares also about how small his camera is, how much it costs, how cool it looks and how easy it is for him to use.
That's just plain stupid.
Quality is definable, it's measurable and it quantifiable.

QuoteQuote:
Pentax would do better to aim for the average consumer and not you, if they want to stay around as a company.
I've bought at least 8 new camera bodies and some 3 dozen new lenses from Pentax over the years.
With digital bodies, I'm not forcing the Pentax to drop their prices before I buy, unlike the average consumer.
Why do you think they would be better off to cater to an average consumer than me?
I've been better to them than probably any 10 "average consumers"
01-18-2010, 08:21 AM   #217
Site Supporter
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,777
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
DSLRs weren't introduced yesterday. You've moved the time line 10 years in an attempt to score a debating point.
I'm calling you on this one.
Actually, what is good for manufacturers is good for manufacturers.
If it is good for consumers too, then it's completely by chance.



Wrong. They will stop making DSLR camera when they feel they can get away with stopping them for something cheaper for them to make. The consumer won't have any choice at all in the matter. The consumer will buy what is available, the manufacturer will decide what is available.

What about them? They don't have anything to do with viewfinders.
Now you've moved the timeline 75 years to try to score debating points.
This is pretty retarded.
I really think you should just go back, reread what you are replying to and stop with the childish nonsense.

Again, you are quoting out of context.
Go back and try again.
I'm not here to give English lessons.

Thats the major intervention part.
I have 12 hard drives in 3 arrays saying i won't lose digital data.
I also have probably 100,000 negatives that are happily sitting in sleeves in dry storage.
Guess which ones are likely to last out the long haul if I stop maintaining my digital archive.

Have you not heard of a box of negatives under the bed?
Conventional film based images will survive benign neglect. Digital images require a tremendous level of pro-activeness on the part of the user.
Digital storage is a lot of work compared to film if you want digital to last.
I lost more digital files through a bad batch of Verbatim CDs than I've lost in 30 years of film photography.

Really? We've actually been pushing for cheaper products.

That's just plain stupid.
Quality is definable, it's measurable and it quantifiable.


I've bought at least 8 new camera bodies and some 3 dozen new lenses from Pentax over the years.
With digital bodies, I'm not forcing the Pentax to drop their prices before I buy, unlike the average consumer.
Why do you think they would be better off to cater to an average consumer than me?
I've been better to them than probably any 10 "average consumers"
I would agree completely with everything except the longevity issue. Granted, there is a level of maintenance one has to do on digital means. However, having photos preserved in the same manner that virtually all other information is preserved will mean there will be many available backup modalities for data, and they will keep improving. And at least if the file is there, the photo is as it was.

Black and white is, of course, very stable and could be stored under the bed. However, not every photographer has the archival storage to ensure that color film does not change over time. I've begun scanning my 30 year old color negatives and E-6 slides, and have often been disappointed in the color despite storage in dry, temperate conditions. I am thankful that I shot so much Kodachrome. The fact that Kodachrome is gone, is perhaps another example of what is good for the manufacturer not being good for the public.
01-18-2010, 09:38 AM   #218
Inactive Account




Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Brisbane, QLD, AUS
Posts: 3,262
QuoteOriginally posted by juu Quote
Your rants become longer, make less and less sense and are getting less funny too (which was their only saving grace previously).

You mostly don't present any new points that haven't been discussed already, but keep on with the strawmen and false dichotomies ("it's DSLR or a pinhole matchbox camera").
You'd know about false dichotomies, bud. Glad I got some expert clarification on this.

Neither do you. Your current arguments consist of magically tapping into the vast array of camera owners' thoughts and deciding what they want. Which conveniently, is also exactly the same thing you want, despite the fact you consider "taking it (what Pentax builds) personally" to be a very bad thing - like you're more impartial than the rest of us. In short, you're trying to maintain some sort of Solomon-like objectivity, when you're clearly biased.

That quip about the matchbox camera? Sarcasm. To highlight your desire for smaller cameras, torpedoes be damned.

The other half consists of blind faith, which, while admirable from a religious perspective, isn't in a photographic perspective (where the payoffs happen before you die.) I'm about as likely to invest (monetarily or otherwise) in technology espoused by a few random net denizens (the Magic-Vu™ Good-As-Glass EVF) as I am to send money to a televangelist.

QuoteQuote:
One sane point in your verbal diarrhea was that "the money is in the accessories". Even if so, EVILs can have accessories just like entry-level DSLRs if not more (upgradeable viewfinders, flashes if there is no built-in one).
So, if they're like DLRs, why would a company who makes DSLRs (and good ones, too,) bother investing in a whole new kind of cameras? Don't external flashes negate some of the size bonuses? And if the EVF's as simply miraculous as you're making it out to be, why upgrade?

QuoteQuote:
And about "caring about the quality of images" - seems like the people buying EVILs over P&S care about that too. Which is why they buy a (relatively) large-format EVIL and not a P&S. The quality of images doesn't seem that bad either as far as I see.
Wait. Are EVILs meant to replace SLRs or P&S cameras? Or both? Convergence is a very dangerous thing.

QuoteQuote:
What Pentax lenses that were manufactured in the last 10 years do you own? Judging by your profile, exactly none.
And it's funny - I still don't want an EVIL. Fortunately, though, no one who owns a Pen or Panny G goes out and buys adapters which let them mount non-M43 glass on their cameras.

QuoteQuote:
I'm only bringing this up as you were using yourself as a great example of somebody who brings in continuous revenue for Pentax.
Oh, I'm sorry, I was trying not to refer to my personal position in that regard, in an effort to satisfy your desire for unselfish thinking in this thread.

Of course, I'd buy Pentax, if I had the cash. I just haven't had much cash. I know, I know, financial mechanics are something that eludes you, which is a basic premise with a lot of these "I wish..." threads. Everyone comes up with some great idea about what Pentax or whatever should do, but no one thinks about how they're gonna do it or pay for it.

Pentax are doing well, but not so well they can drop what they're doing, and bust out on a crazy new adventure, especially if it means doing that instead of what they're good and what's currently making them money.

Having said that, I'm not a fanboi. I look out for my needs first, not a camera company's.

QuoteQuote:
Anyway, why do you think companies try to fight in the entry-level DSLR market if the bottom-rung consumer is so useless?
I never said they were useless, they're just not worth putting that much effort into. It's a good market. Just not one with much potential for repeat business.

QuoteQuote:
Well, I've said before that this discussion isn't about underwear or illicit substances, but about camera gear. Is that so hard to grasp?
Sarcasm, my friend. Besides, the real money's in crack.

QuoteQuote:
Are you claiming Pentax is unqualified to market EVIL cameras? That their marketing department is useless and can only sell P&S and DSLRs which somehow sell themselves?
See, now I know you're full of shit. Everyone knows Pentax doesn't have a marketing department...

It sucks to be you, juu. You're in the unenviable position of being an brand loyalist who's extremely tempted by another brand.

Summing up my position for the rest of you:

* EVILs are more easily manufactured by large electronics companies, like others have said. Panasonic is such a large company ("large" is an understatement.)

* Pentax, unlike Panasonic or Samsung, don't have their own infrastructure to build cameras like the EVILs as prolifically as Panny or Sammy - Pentax has to outsource for sensors, they'll have to outsource for those magic EVFs (when they finally arrive.)

* Pentax, while not in a Chrysler-tastic doom spiral, isn't exactly rolling in liquid assets, either. They're doing well, and I'm glad for that. They're in the black. But I believe that taking a punt on something that's new, and, as yet, is far from becoming the new standard.

* The K-x sells shitloads because - get this - it comes in different colours. That's all it takes to sway a lot of the consumer base. Unlike EVILs, however, having a camera come in something other than black doesn't add much to the production cost. Maybe a buck or two. It uses existing tooling, equipment and training. It's a genius move on Pentax's part. Oh, and it's only about $650US, with a better-than-average (matching) kit lens. They clawed back a big part of the market by doing, well, nearly bugger-all. That's what Pentax is good at - thinking up crap no one else is doing, even though it's no trouble to do, and doing it. The Sensor Shift in the K-7 was another, as was in-camera HDR. It's basically a D300 in a lighter, cheaper, smaller package.

* There are several areas that Pentax needs to address before coming up with a new mount, new camera, and then shelling out to build said camera. Marketing's the biggest one. Read some of the threads about Pentax ads - that's right, we start whole new threads on seeing a quarter-page ad in an obscure magazine (I'm not knocking those threads, I think they're great.) But it's a good indicator of how - and, dammit, I never thought I'd utter such a phrase - we are for advertising. Finding a camera store that has more than one square foot of shelf space for Pentax is harder than finding a decent public toilet in Fortitude Valley at 2AM on a Saturday. SDM's the big elephant in the room - complaints are pouring in, but not much is happening, far as we can tell. When your flagship zoom lens has had as many complaints as the DA* 16-50mm, you need to do something. A greater lens, not necessarily Limiteds or DA* (People's Prime!) selection, and a new/better AF system would be great, too. These a real problems current Pentax users have, not trying to carve a new niche.

* EVF's, in this old-school, penniless, film-shooting, manual-focusing Luddite's opinion, add nothing to the image, yet do add cost and complexity to the camera, as well as new manufacturing challenges to the company building them. In short, they're an expensive Rube Goldberg/Heath Robinson solution to a non-existant problem. Consumers don't mind live view (hell, some of them prefer it over anything else,) and a lot of enthusiasts like prisms. Of course, there will be exceptions to this. Nothing's set in stone. And there's no reason that, should Pentax become flush with a lot more cash, and fix the glaring problems, that it can drop a K-mount EVIL to test the waters. Diving in like a fictional lemming would not go well.

* As yet, the current crop of EVILs leave a lot to be desired. Hell, if re-issuing the Pen six months after its first release wasn't a giant middle finger, I don't know what is. Despite the hype, mostly novelty, they've yet to devastate DSLR sales. "My mate's got one and I want one," isn't the best market research data. Currently, EVIL are extremely half-arsed, and one of two things: half-arsed DSLRs or exceedingly over priced P&S cams. But since they're selling fairly well, there'll be no need to drop the price or increase the features too much. Also, where's the glass? As it stands, the're weighted more towards people who put their new phone on the bar at the pub and desperately you'll ask, oh, is that a new phone?

* And this beg's the question, if you can't tell the difference between a EVIL viewfinder and a prism finder - who's to say if people will automatically choose EVIL?

01-18-2010, 11:58 AM   #219
juu
Veteran Member
juu's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 680
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
DSLRs weren't introduced yesterday. You've moved the time line 10 years in an attempt to score a debating point.
I'm calling you on this one.
Your rebuttal makes no sense.

Let's look at your quote again:
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
DSLRs did not represent a quality advantage when they were introduced, but they offered photographers a very real and tangible benefit, which was that they could control their entire process from start to finish.

[..]

[DSLRs] represent a bad deal for consumers [..]
That is your quote and the sentence parts I've snipped don't affect the meaning.

In that quote you are in contradiction with yourself. First you say DSLRs offered "a very real and tangible benefit", next you say they "were a bad deal for consumers". You cannot have it both ways.

Don't try to confuse this by the time argument, it's clear that early adopters generally get an immature product at a higher price.


QuoteQuote:
Actually, what is good for manufacturers is good for manufacturers. If it is good for consumers too, then it's completely by chance. [..] They will stop making DSLR camera when they feel they can get away with stopping them for something cheaper for them to make. The consumer won't have any choice at all in the matter. The consumer will buy what is available, the manufacturer will decide what is available.
The above statements are in contradiction with generally accepted economic theory. I suggest you attempt to your new breakthroughs published. Alternatively, you could just study basic economics - something which I cannot be bothered to tutor here in this thread to someone like you.

QuoteQuote:
QuoteOriginally posted by juu:
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield:
Every single "improvement" in photographic equipment in the past 75 or so years has been at the expense of quality.
What about better sensors, metering or auto-focus?
What about them? They don't have anything to do with viewfinders.

QuoteQuote:
Are you seriously suggesting that the best camera in 1935 took better pictures than, say, a Leica S2?
Now you've moved the timeline 75 years to try to score debating points.
If you look above, you yourself claimed every single improvement since 1935 has somehow made cameras worse. It is your quote. It is what you said. You did not refer to just viewfinders, you referred to (I quote) "every single 'improvement'".

That is indeed pretty retarded and childish, especially if you don't seem to recall what your own statements were.

QuoteQuote:
Again, you are quoting out of context.
Oh, I'm quoting very much in context, using your own words.

For you, somehow, colour in TV is a "very real technological improvement over B&W". Colour in film is "at the expense of quality" and allegedly a bad thing.

Again, you cannot have it both ways.


QuoteQuote:
Guess which ones are likely to last out the long haul if I stop maintaining my digital archive.
Well, most people don't keep their negatives in dry storage. Most people have misplaced their analog negatives while their pictures are shifting colour in their albums slowly. So their photos on Flickr will probably outlast their analog pictures, assuming no global nuclear war (in which case the fate of photos isn't really at the top of the priorities list).

Once again you are arguing from your personal perspective, which isn't really representative of much of the market.

QuoteQuote:
QuoteOriginally posted by juu:
this flock of sheep has generally pushed companies to produce better products
Really? We've actually been pushing for cheaper products.
Something you seem to miss... cheaper is one component of 'better', at least for most people.

QuoteQuote:
QuoteOriginally posted by juu:
quality is certainly subjective
That's just plain stupid.
Quality is definable, it's measurable and it quantifiable.
Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it stupid. Just because you choose to redefine the word 'quality' to something that suits your narrow needs, doesn't make that definition right.

There is a good reason why you're not here to give English lessons. You're not qualified.

QuoteQuote:
Why do you think they would be better off to cater to an average consumer than me?
I've been better to them than probably any 10 "average consumers"
First, you are harder to please than the average consumer. A lot harder.

Second, obviously if they had to choose between one you and one average consumer the choice is fairly easy. However, while you have been better to them than 10 "average consumers" there are probably hundreds of "average consumers" per every you. Do the math.

Although, to be fair, it is a certainly viable strategy to cater only to the 'pro' crowd, just something that isn't in line with current Pentax positioning (note how they are the only ones who lack FF), so the shift would be a lot bigger than doing EVIL.
01-18-2010, 12:40 PM   #220
juu
Veteran Member
juu's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 680
QuoteOriginally posted by lithos Quote
So, if they're like DLRs, why would a company who makes DSLRs (and good ones, too,) bother investing in a whole new kind of cameras?
To sell them and make money. Duh.

I said they were like DSLRs in that you could also sell accessories for them, not that they were identical to DSLRs in all other ways. You should have understood this by now I think.

QuoteQuote:
Don't external flashes negate some of the size bonuses?
They do when you have to bring them with you. And they don't when you don't.

QuoteQuote:
And if the EVF's as simply miraculous as you're making it out to be, why upgrade?
First, not all EVILs have built-in EVFs.

Second, you are misrepresenting my points again. I never said they were 'miraculous'. Just 'good enough'. And you can make something that is 'good enough' 'better'. Hence the opportunity to upgrade.

QuoteQuote:
Are EVILs meant to replace SLRs or P&S cameras? Or both?
How about a bit of both? With cell phones taking a huge part of the P&S market too?

QuoteQuote:
Convergence is a very dangerous thing.
Why?

QuoteQuote:
Oh, I'm sorry, I was trying not to refer to my personal position in that regard, in an effort to satisfy your desire for unselfish thinking in this thread.
You weren't trying very hard I guess, as you more or less did.

QuoteQuote:
See, now I know you're full of shit. Everyone knows Pentax doesn't have a marketing department...
lol

QuoteQuote:
You're in the unenviable position of being an brand loyalist who's extremely tempted by another brand.
That is true, I'll give you that. And I'd much rather pay Pentax for an EVIL than Panasonic.

QuoteQuote:
Summing up my position for the rest of you:
In your summary you're actually expressing your points well.

QuoteQuote:
* EVILs are more easily manufactured by large electronics companies, like others have said. Panasonic is such a large company ("large" is an understatement.)
* Pentax, unlike Panasonic or Samsung, don't have their own infrastructure to build cameras like the EVILs as prolifically as Panny or Sammy - Pentax has to outsource for sensors, they'll have to outsource for those magic EVFs (when they finally arrive.)
* Pentax, while not in a Chrysler-tastic doom spiral, isn't exactly rolling in liquid assets, either. They're doing well, and I'm glad for that. They're in the black.
True. But since they manage to outsource the sensors alright, it's probably possible for them to outsource EVFs as well.

QuoteQuote:
But I believe that taking a punt on something that's new, and, as yet, is far from becoming the new standard.
Here I disagree, I think EVILs will be taking more and more market share away from DSLRs year after year.

QuoteQuote:
* The K-x sells shitloads because - get this - it comes in different colours. That's all it takes to sway a lot of the consumer base. Unlike EVILs, however, having a camera come in something other than black doesn't add much to the production cost. Maybe a buck or two. It uses existing tooling, equipment and training. It's a genius move on Pentax's part. Oh, and it's only about $650US, with a better-than-average (matching) kit lens. They clawed back a big part of the market by doing, well, nearly bugger-all. That's what Pentax is good at - thinking up crap no one else is doing, even though it's no trouble to do, and doing it.
I agree, but when do you think the competition will copy the multiple colours and what will it do to Pentax sales?

If it's something easy to do, it's generally not a sustainable competitive advantage.

QuoteQuote:
* There are several areas that Pentax needs to address before coming up with a new mount, new camera, and then shelling out to build said camera. Marketing's the biggest one. [..] SDM's the big elephant in the room [..]
True.

QuoteQuote:
* EVF's [..] add cost and complexity to the camera
Wheatfield has argued otherwise in this thread. That EVILs are cheaper to build for manufacturers, which is why they will push them.

So which is it?

QuoteQuote:
they're an expensive [..] solution to a non-existant problem.
We've discussed this. Size/weight is a very real problem for a significant segment of the market.

QuoteQuote:
And there's no reason that, should Pentax become flush with a lot more cash, and fix the glaring problems, that it can drop a K-mount EVIL to test the waters.
You suggest Pentax waits until everybody else has divided up the market, then jump in late. Is that what happened with digital?

QuoteQuote:
* And this beg's the question, if you can't tell the difference between a EVIL viewfinder and a prism finder - who's to say if people will automatically choose EVIL?
It would have a size and weight advantage, as well as do some of the things Fogel70 mentioned:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/884867-post189.html
01-19-2010, 03:05 AM   #221
juu
Veteran Member
juu's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 680
BTW, would some of you be sport for a little prediction game...?

Answer two questions in this thread:
a. What do you estimate EVIL's share of the top 10 interchangeable-lens cameras of the Japanese market will be in December 2010?
b. What should the aforementioned market share be for it to be a good idea for Pentax to release an EVIL camera?

The reason the question is phrased like that is because I'm not aware of any other reliable regularly published market share data. We can make it more generic, e.g., worldwide sales, if anyone can find the data for it.

My answers are:
a. 18% or more
b. 15% or more

Just state your estimates, you don't need to attack anyone else's estimates... at least not until January 2011 .
01-19-2010, 04:20 AM   #222
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,230
I have a game for you, too:

Answer few questions:
1. How much market share could Pentax steal from Panasonic, assuming they would launch an EVIL?
a. 100%
b. ~50%
c. ~25%
d. less than 10%

2. What camera should Pentax delay, in order to launch an EVIL camera?
a. The K-7 replacement
b. The K-x replacement
c. Both

3. Do you think the K-mount lens range is complete?
a. Yes, please stop introducing new K-mount lenses in order to be able to make a bare minimum for an EVIL
b. No, there are gaps - a longer telephoto, a longer macro, MkII versions of some lenses (e.g. 16-50)...

4. How many "K-mount is doomed! It will disappear into oblivion" threads per day will be started, on internet forums, if Pentax will go EVIL?
a. 100
b. 1000
c. lots

5. How many people would complain they built the EVIL and not a FF?
a. all pentaxian FF fans
b. all pentaxian FF fans, but not only
c. all but the EVIL fans
01-19-2010, 05:10 AM   #223
juu
Veteran Member
juu's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 680
Kunzite, you didn't play my game, but want me to play yours.

Anyway, I don't mind answering:
1. depends on how good it is, probably they could have 20% of EVIL market. As the market will be growing they won't have to "steal" sales (convert people back from m43), just focus on new customers.
2. d. - 645D which I perceive as a halo product and not a real money-maker; it may be too late for that though, in which case don't delay either camera but only do the easier improvements
3. c. - fix SDM, add WR to more lenses as a priority. Rebadge Tokina lenses, e.g., 11-16. This is actually with or without EVIL.
4. d. - some, but a K-mount adapter announcement should come at the same time as the micro-K system announcement to lessen this
5. b. - but people always complain on the internets.

Now, are you going to play my game?

Last edited by juu; 01-19-2010 at 05:24 AM.
01-19-2010, 05:27 AM   #224
Pentaxian
Fogel70's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,741
If Pentax really believes in EVIL they will hire more engineers so it will not take too much resources from DSLR.

Many decisions Pentax made the last 25 years have made them lose market share. But if they decide to be in front in EVIL development they might increase market share quite a lot, which will finance a larger R&D department and in the long run will make Pentax more competitive on all type of cameras.
01-19-2010, 06:06 AM   #225
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,230
OK, I'll start with your game:
a. your 18% +/- 5%. Talking about Japan only.
b. that's a tricky one... just putting a number, any number - but lower than on a. doesn't work
I'll just use a generic "when consumers would start avoiding DSLRs". Then they should offer their users an easy migration path (i.e. an EVIL with will fully supports the K-mount lenses, with an adapter)

Now, back at "my" game:
1. 20% from 18%? That's 3.6%. Half than what K-x is doing.... and I doubt they can do this with their first EVIL.
2. 645 is not one of the options, and for good reason: is too near it's launch, so sacking it will not free R&D resources. Besides, if they would delay it further they will lose this opportunity forever - their reputation being ruined in the process.
So please chose between the two: K-7's of K-x's replacement?
3. No, no, no. Say clearly if you want new K-mount lenses (including WR/better SDM/whatever improvements over the current products), or they could use the limited resources they have to make EVIL lenses.
4. Still, people could see that move as Pentax abandoning the K-mount.
5. True. Should we ignore them? I'd say, let's ignore instead the EVIL fans. After all, people always complain on the Internet
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
adaptor, camera, cameras, da, dpreview.com, four-thirds, lineup, market, pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors, primes
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
EVIL Camera at Photokina for Pentax ? wll Pentax News and Rumors 19 09-11-2010 06:22 PM
People "The deadly evil Pentax Camera" charliezap Post Your Photos! 6 06-05-2010 05:39 AM
Early review of Sony NEX-3 EVIL camera Urkeldaedalus Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 27 05-24-2010 11:47 AM
Crazy,possibly stupid idea for a Pentax EVIL camera BLD367 Photographic Technique 2 05-07-2010 07:49 AM
Help me build a good kit. (A Virtual Camera Bag) doggydude Photographic Technique 2 12-21-2006 06:37 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:06 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top