[Ash]

K-01 use K-mount so it has no real advantage over a K-mount DSLR IMO. The only advantage on K-01 is that Pentax had to sell the very cheap to get rid of them, so you could get a K-mount camera cheap. But Pentax probably did not make much profit on them.

I think it would be nice with a DA15/2 no larger than DA15/4, or perhaps a small D-FA20/1.8.

Users have been talking about making a FF MILC just so that it can be cheaper than a dSLR. That's the idea of the K-01 which you are now downplaying.
I probably don't see a practical advantage in having fast wide angle lenses since they're chiefly used for landscape/architecture. I had the DA 14 for a while and found the f/2.8 capability not very useful. The DA 12-24 had much more versatility. That's just me but I wonder how many shots cannot be captured by having an f/4 wide angle lens.

[IchabodCrane]

If 30% more expensive means "roughly equivalent"...
I can't exclude what you want for two reasons:
- CIPA doesn't publish separate data for high end and mid/low end DSLRs, afaik. Are those enough to explain the 30% difference? FF cameras having what, about 10% market share?
- you are asking to erase an advantage of the DSLR market - its ability to sell higher end cameras, for no other reason than to make MILCs look better. There is no proof that, if someone would make a high end / pro MILC camera, it would sell.

Ron, what do you mean by "cheap"? $2500? $3000?

I think you understood my point but are trying to change the subject. There is no MILC (yet) that competes at all with a 1D, D4, D800, etc. Heck, there never may be. For the rest of the market, for which Pentax designs and sells cameras, the data supports nominal price equivalency between the technologies.

[Kunzite]

No, I'm just refusing to accept such unsupported claims. I've put some numbers on the table; show me yours, which suggest what you say.
By the way, both Q and the K-01 started to really sell after significant price cuts.

[normhead]

No, I'm just refusing to accept such unsupported claims. I've put some numbers on the table; show me yours, which suggest what you say.
By the way, both Q and the K-01 started to really sell after significant price cuts.

But are they making Pentax any money at those prices or are they just cutting their losses ad selling them off while they can still get anything for them?

[Rondec]

But are they making Pentax any money at those prices or are they just cutting their losses ad selling them off while they can still get anything for them?

Don't you think the question is more how much profit the dealers are making on these cameras? Maybe Pentax has taken a loss, but I have a hard time believing it, particularly on the Q. There just can't be that much expense in the components. You might as well ask if Pentax is taking a loss on K5s selling for 800.

[Ash]

But are they making Pentax any money at those prices or are they just cutting their losses ad selling them off while they can still get anything for them?

Cutting what losses? It's a good product. It's selling at about $300 presently. It's not cost price. I don't understand the motive behind all this negative talk of Pentax. There's nothing realistic about it.

[normhead]

Don't you think the question is more how much profit the dealers are making on these cameras? Maybe Pentax has taken a loss, but I have a hard time believing it, particularly on the Q. There just can't be that much expense in the components. You might as well ask if Pentax is taking a loss on K5s selling for 800.

Ya, I ask that too... I'm not sure how relevant that is though. I suspect the current k-5'ss are being sold at a loss, but they had a good production run and I'm guessing given the whole life of the camera it made them money. Lot's of people paid good prices for the K-5 and the price didn't drop below $999 until they'd been declared out of production. I'm guessing the K-01 and Q were less likely to have covered their costs. Although I hear the Q was very popular in some markets. The K-01, not so much.

[normhead]

Cutting what losses? It's a good product. It's selling at about $300 presently. It's not cost price. I don't understand the motive behind all this negative talk of Pentax. There's nothing realistic about it.

I usually assume that a product selling for less than half it's introductory price isn't making the manufacturer any money. But that's just my assumption.

[northcoastgreg]

I have for along time, when ever I get the opportunity, ask dozens and dozens of people if they know what a FF camera was and get this blank look facing me.

I run into this all the time as well. I know of number of photographers, including one former professional who once had a gallery show in New York, who not only don't know what FF or APS-C means, but couldn't tell you the MP count of their cameras, the model number, or whether they shoot raw or jpeg. I've even run across photographers who are a bit fuzzy about the focal lengths of the two or three lenses that they own. There's a surprising number of photographers who just don't care about the tech stuff.

[Ash]

There are photographers, and then there are gear heads.

[Kunzite]

But are they making Pentax any money at those prices or are they just cutting their losses ad selling them off while they can still get anything for them?

With the Q, most likely; it has a small sensor so it should be cheap to make (but this has been said already). Now, don't tell me Pentax has to sell it at $800 or close in order to make a profit.

[Fogel70]

Users have been talking about making a FF MILC just so that it can be cheaper than a dSLR. That's the idea of the K-01 which you are now downplaying.
I probably don't see a practical advantage in having fast wide angle lenses since they're chiefly used for landscape/architecture. I had the DA 14 for a while and found the f/2.8 capability not very useful. The DA 12-24 had much more versatility. That's just me but I wonder how many shots cannot be captured by having an f/4 wide angle lens.

I don't see K-01 as a MILC, for me it's more of a OVF-less DSLR with CDAF. So it got all the disadvantages of DSLR and MILC, without any real advantages of them. By sacrificing OVF, K-01 had a introduction price $100 less than K30. For most K-mount users I believe OVF and PDAF is worth more than that, so K-01 did not sell well.

I can see many advantage of having faster wide angle lenses, for instance when shooting indoors, or shooting close up and getting better separation of background.Why do you think most ILC system have a fast "24mm" lens?
Another advantage of lenses needing less glass is that they are cheaper to manufacture, which hopefully lead to lower price on lenses.

[Rondec]

I usually assume that a product selling for less than half it's introductory price isn't making the manufacturer any money. But that's just my assumption.

Perhaps, but I think Ricoh's style of business and Hoya's are very different. Hoya was very much a company to squeeze early adopters of any camera for all they were worth and then to lower the prices. With the K-01, in particular, they thought that they had an item with cachet that would sell for higher prices because of its design. When Ricoh reviewed what they were selling, they decided (wisely) that both the K-01 and Q were way too expensive for what they were and so they slashed prices.

Even with the K5 II and IIs, Hoya would have sold them for 1400 and 1500 dollar initial price, never mind that they are just tweaks to the K5. Ricoh released them at much closer to a thousand dollars. In the end, Ricoh's goal seems to be to sell cameras, and that is a good thing in my book and will help to strength the brand.

[snake]

Perhaps, but I think Ricoh's style of business and Hoya's are very different. Hoya was very much a company to squeeze early adopters of any camera for all they were worth and then to lower the prices. With the K-01, in particular, they thought that they had an item with cachet that would sell for higher prices because of its design. When Ricoh reviewed what they were selling, they decided (wisely) that both the K-01 and Q were way too expensive for what they were and so they slashed prices.

Even with the K5 II and IIs, Hoya would have sold them for 1400 and 1500 dollar initial price, never mind that they are just tweaks to the K5. Ricoh released them at much closer to a thousand dollars. In the end, Ricoh's goal seems to be to sell cameras, and that is a good thing in my book and will help to strength the brand.

They should not go too far and be more careful in the balancing act of getting units out the door and not cheapening the brand permanently. The consumer wins when they can manage this right. In the case of Samsung, only a few are actually buying them at intro and full price. They know that all one needs to do is wait 4 months and prices will be slashed 40% and more. Even at those prices, the market still dictated that the products were overpriced and on top of that, they do it so consistently that the market will not reverse and has said their products are not worth whatever Samsung asks.

[Rondec]

They should not go too far and be more careful in the balancing act of getting units out the door and not cheapening the brand permanently. The consumer wins when they can manage this right. In the case of Samsung, only a few are actually buying them at intro and full price. They know that all one needs to do is wait 4 months and prices will be slashed 40% and more. Even at those prices, the market still dictated that the products were overpriced and on top of that, they do it so consistently that the market will not reverse and has said their products are not worth whatever Samsung asks.

Yes, but Hoya would slash prices by the end. The K7 came out at close to 1500 dollars, but ones sold neither the end sold for 650. People knew under Hoya that there would be a steady downward trickle on prices. Better to release for a decent (maybe slightly inflated price) and then hold steady for most of the products lifespan, only dropping prices when you are trying to get rid of old stock.

More important is to have products that the market wants and is willing to pay for.