What could be 'different' about Pentax FF?

ElJamoquio · 10-03-2014, 07:42 PM

Uh... kudos for your dedication.

**monochrome** · 10-03-2014, 08:18 PM

@Kadajawi - you just don't get it. They don't need to compete with Canon or Nikon. Scale is Pentax's enemy.

kadajawi · 10-04-2014, 11:05 AM

Originally posted by monochrome

@Kadajawi - you just don't get it. They don't need to compete with Canon or Nikon. Scale is Pentax's enemy.

Admittedly I don't. They are supposed to sell cameras that are not competitive? I fail to see a realistic selling point for a FF Pentax DSLR, that would make people buy it over a Canikon FF DSLR. Smaller body? Unlikely, especially with a built in SR, and that is necessary thanks to the lack of stabilized lenses. Better weather resistance and more solid? We're talking 5D, 1D etc., I think they are pretty decent. Better viewfinder? Pentax has a better entry level APS-C viewfinder than Canikon, true, but that's because Canikon isn't trying. The best APS-C Canikons are just as good as Pentax, and on a FF body you won't find a cheapskate entry level DSLR viewfinder. Pentax can compete in the APS-C segment as their competitors aren't really trying, but they do put some effort into the FF cameras. The only thing that speaks for Pentax is the K mount... but it only does so for people who are Pentax shooters (with FF Pentax lenses).

So Canikon users will obviously stay with Canikon, but even if someone wants to upgrade from a mirrorless to a FF DSLR, why on earth would he pick a Pentax? He would have to start from scratch anyway, so he might as well go for Canikon. Ok, unless he wants it in hot pink, then he does have to buy a Pentax.

**monochrome** · 10-04-2014, 11:28 AM

Originally posted by kadajawi

Admittedly I don't.

You still don't understand 'compete'.

High capital investment, high marketing expense high volume, low profit margin, BigBox distribution is required to compete with Nikon and Canon. Pentax simply cannot do that. They aren't big enough. They can't make enough product to do it. They don't want to make the kind of products the average camera buyer buys in large volume at large chain stores.

They cant to compete with Canon and Nikon.

Ricoh has to do something else. They have to make a product that a smaller number of people want to buy (so they can make a smaller number of them in their limited-volume facilities), that they don't need to advertise, and that those people are willing to search for (in the West) to get it.

kadajawi · 10-04-2014, 12:59 PM

Originally posted by monochrome

You still don't understand 'compete'.

High capital investment, high marketing expense high volume, low profit margin, BigBox distribution is required to compete with Nikon and Canon. Pentax simply cannot do that. They aren't big enough. They can't make enough product to do it. They don't want to make the kind of products the average camera buyer buys in large volume at large chain stores.

They cant to compete with Canon and Nikon.

Ricoh has to do something else. They have to make a product that a smaller number of people want to buy (so they can make a smaller number of them in their limited-volume facilities), that they don't need to advertise, and that those people are willing to search for (in the West) to get it.

So basically you say they should stop with that APS-C/FF nonsense (or at the very least not do a FF camera) and only make the 645Z and the Q from now on? They should stop making cameras for most people in this forum? I don't think that's what Ricoh had in mind, when they bought Pentax, though that is the direction they have steered Pentax into (or allowed Pentax to go in that direction).

DSLRs are well covered by Canikon, especially on the FF side, Canikon leaves some room for Pentax in the APS-C segment, but I don't think there is any in the FF segment. Full frame mirrorless is well covered by Sony, top of the line APS-C is well covered by Samsung. Olympus and Panasonic cover the smaller than APS-C but not too small market, and Panasonic, Sony and Samsung do video really well, while Olympus has better stabilization than Pentax. Rangefinders are well covered by Fuji and Leica, and traditionally not a strength of Pentax anyway. Is it the colorful camera market that Pentax should do?

Btw., Ricoh Pentax is larger than Nikon, IIRC, and brands like Sony, Olympus, Panasonic and Samsung have (or had) less marketshare than Pentax and could get into shops (unlike Pentax).

ElJamoquio · 10-04-2014, 01:21 PM

Canon and Nikon cover the FF market well. They cover the APS-C market just as well.

kadajawi · 10-04-2014, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by ElJamoquio

Canon and Nikon cover the FF market well. They cover the APS-C market just as well.

Not exactly. Canon and Nikon make their semi-pro/pro APS-C cameras larger than necessary, so there is a niche left for a more travelling oriented semi-pro/pro DSLR, the K-3. As compact as an entry level camera, but as well built, if not better, than the top of the line models from Canikon. That's why I am with Pentax. That and ergonomics.

In FF though, can they really make it much smaller, especially considering that Pentax' sensor assembly has to be bigger than those used by Canikon? Unless they drop SR. And can they deliver a superior viewfinder (bigger?) and yet a smaller camera?

Btw. I doubt that Pentax does not want to produce as many cameras as they can, that their production facilities are not big enough. If they aren't, they can expand, or people simply have to wait a bit for their camera. And it's not like a FF Pentax is going to be a hit that Pentax won't be able to produce fast enough.

**monochrome** · 10-04-2014, 03:32 PM

Originally posted by kadajawi

So basically you say they should stop with that APS-C/FF nonsense (or at the very least not do a FF camera) and only make the 645Z and the Q from now on? They should stop making cameras for most people in this forum? I don't think that's what Ricoh had in mind, when they bought Pentax, though that is the direction they have steered Pentax into (or allowed Pentax to go in that direction).

DSLRs are well covered by Canikon, especially on the FF side, Canikon leaves some room for Pentax in the APS-C segment, but I don't think there is any in the FF segment. Full frame mirrorless is well covered by Sony, top of the line APS-C is well covered by Samsung. Olympus and Panasonic cover the smaller than APS-C but not too small market, and Panasonic, Sony and Samsung do video really well, while Olympus has better stabilization than Pentax. Rangefinders are well covered by Fuji and Leica, and traditionally not a strength of Pentax anyway. Is it the colorful camera market that Pentax should do?

Btw., Ricoh Pentax is larger than Nikon, IIRC, and brands like Sony, Olympus, Panasonic and Samsung have (or had) less marketshare than Pentax and could get into shops (unlike Pentax).

I said nothing of the sort.

They make APSc cameras that are different. They will make a FF that is different. The will sell to people who don't want a Nikon or a Canon because the want the combination of features, qualities and Image output uniquely offered by a Pentax camera and lens. They will sell fewer cameras than CaNikon, in fewer locations, at a premium price. The value will be the additional features and the better image quality for the price.

People who don't want those characteristics or don't want to pay the price or don't want to go to the trouble to find Pentax will buy Canon or Nikon. That's fine. Ricoh will be profitable. Ricoh Corporation is half the size of Canon and twice the size of Nikon. Ricoh Imaging is nowhere near either imaging company in revenue.

The specific brand items you referred to in stores are showing high-volume, low-margin consumer electronic products. Ricoh Imaging doesn't make products in those market slices for distribution in the West. The K-500 didin't work very well.

We really have to stop expecting Pentax to meet Canon and Nikon in the market and steal their market share. It isn't going to happen. They aren't even going to try to do that. They're a different company with a different business model.

Poit · 10-04-2014, 04:05 PM

Hmmm, this discussion is a bit daft.

Of course Pentax/Ricoh are in competition with Canon & Nikon. There is a (decreasingly) finite number of customers for DSLR cameras, and every manufacturer is eager for those customers to come their way or stay with them - that's competition in it's simplest form! Of course Ricoh would like substantial numbers of Canikon users to come their way. Look at the marketing for the 645z. Look at their delight when the 645z sales outstripped supply.

Sure, Pentax operates on much smaller scale (at the moment) than Canon or Nikon, and their business model is to concentrate on quality over quantity, but they do so because that is the only way they can....um.....compete. To suggest that they aim to always be a small scale operation is madness, and to suggest that they don't want to attract more customers (including Canikon users) is also madness. I agree though, to suggest that they are going to be on the same scale as Canikon in the near-medium term is unrealistic, but I bet they do have aspirations to be so in the long term.

Look at the topic of his very thread. Why does Ricoh/Pentax want to be 'different'? So they can...um....compete for those ever-so-limited customers.

ElJamoquio · 10-04-2014, 07:09 PM

Hell, Pentax execs have said they want to be a "third full-line manufacturer" or some words to that effect.

I think we're making this more complex than it actually is.

**monochrome** · 10-04-2014, 07:23 PM

There's a world of difference between making a product that takes a customer away from another brand and trying to do more of the same thing as your competitor. At a point you can make more money selling fewer items than if you try to sell more items at a lower price.

rawr · 10-04-2014, 07:29 PM

Originally posted by Poit

To suggest that they aim to always be a small scale operation is madness

I agree. I'm sure Ricoh would be much happier selling 10 million DSLR's a year than 500,000. Going big can generate problems, but it can also generate opportunities too.

I bet if Nikon or Canon failed in some big way in 2015 (eg all their new DSLRs turned out to be horrible duds, or in some other way consumers turned against them, which can happen these days surprisingly quickly), I am sure Pentax would be very happy to open five more lens and camera factories to fill the gap, and would probably rush deploy 3 new FF models too.

**monochrome** · 10-04-2014, 07:31 PM

Originally posted by Poit

To suggest that they aim to always be a small scale operation is madness, and to suggest that they don't want to attract more customers (including Canikon users) is also madness.

If attracting more Nikon and Canon buyers means they have to act like Nikon and Canon as a business, then no, they don't want those Nikon and Canon customers.

**monochrome** · 10-04-2014, 07:38 PM

Originally posted by rawr

I agree. I'm sure Ricoh would be much happier selling 10 million DSLR's a year than 500,000. Going big can generate problems, but it can also generate opportunities too.

I bet if Nikon or Canon failed in some big way in 2015 (eg all their new DSLRs turned out to be horrible duds, or in some other way consumers turned against them, which can happen these days surprisingly quickly), I am sure Pentax would be very happy to open five more lens and camera factories to fill the gap, and would probably rush deploy 3 new FF models too.

It won't happen that fast. Canon and Nikon aren't financially strapped. By the time Ricoh (and everyone else) stepped in Canon and Nikon would have recovered, at last somewhat. You simply don't build a modern manufacturing plant in six months - it takes several years.

Olympus? Maybe, Sony? Who knows what's really happening there. Fuji? They feel pretty strong.

Just wait for the GoPro kiddies to move on to the next neat thing. How's that 1250 P/E stock going to do then?

I don't believe they want to stay small forever any more than anyone else does. I just don't believe they are able to ramp up to compete effectively against 80% of the market in anything like the short or intermediate term.

30 years - sure, by growth and acquisition, just like they did in office equipment. Which is, in fact, their stated goal.

rawr · 10-04-2014, 07:55 PM

Although they do pull out some surprises sometimes, Ricoh does seem to be a slow-and-steady company not really working for short-term wins or growth spurts. It tests the patience of customers sometimes - like with FF - but it is probably a sustainable way to evolve the company.

I guess Ricoh better hope that any new Pentax FF they make doesn't become a smash hit with reviewers and consumers ...

10-04-2014, 11:05 AM	#453
kadajawi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 2,799	Originally posted by monochrome @Kadajawi - you just don't get it. They don't need to compete with Canon or Nikon. Scale is Pentax's enemy. Admittedly I don't. They are supposed to sell cameras that are not competitive? I fail to see a realistic selling point for a FF Pentax DSLR, that would make people buy it over a Canikon FF DSLR. Smaller body? Unlikely, especially with a built in SR, and that is necessary thanks to the lack of stabilized lenses. Better weather resistance and more solid? We're talking 5D, 1D etc., I think they are pretty decent. Better viewfinder? Pentax has a better entry level APS-C viewfinder than Canikon, true, but that's because Canikon isn't trying. The best APS-C Canikons are just as good as Pentax, and on a FF body you won't find a cheapskate entry level DSLR viewfinder. Pentax can compete in the APS-C segment as their competitors aren't really trying, but they do put some effort into the FF cameras. The only thing that speaks for Pentax is the K mount... but it only does so for people who are Pentax shooters (with FF Pentax lenses). So Canikon users will obviously stay with Canikon, but even if someone wants to upgrade from a mirrorless to a FF DSLR, why on earth would he pick a Pentax? He would have to start from scratch anyway, so he might as well go for Canikon. Ok, unless he wants it in hot pink, then he does have to buy a Pentax. Last edited by kadajawi; 10-04-2014 at 11:12 AM.

10-04-2014, 07:23 PM	#461
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	There's a world of difference between making a product that takes a customer away from another brand and trying to do more of the same thing as your competitor. At a point you can make more money selling fewer items than if you try to sell more items at a lower price. Last edited by monochrome; 10-04-2014 at 07:32 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Could Different Sensors Be Compared To Different Films?	rbefly	Pentax DSLR Discussion	6	01-15-2014 06:36 AM
DA lenses that could be used on FF	toukan	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	4	11-28-2013 05:04 AM
How could a Pentax FF be cost effective?	normhead	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	3	09-18-2012 12:18 PM
FF Pentax could be like Nikon D3	Denis	Pentax News and Rumors	7	08-01-2008 09:05 PM
Pentax hybrid FF camera. Could it be real?	ogl	Pentax News and Rumors	38	07-07-2008 04:27 AM

10-03-2014, 07:42 PM	#451
ElJamoquio Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 4,873	Uh... kudos for your dedication.

10-03-2014, 08:18 PM	#452
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	@Kadajawi - you just don't get it. They don't need to compete with Canon or Nikon. Scale is Pentax's enemy.

10-04-2014, 11:28 AM	#454
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by kadajawi Admittedly I don't. You still don't understand 'compete'. High capital investment, high marketing expense high volume, low profit margin, BigBox distribution is required to compete with Nikon and Canon. Pentax simply cannot do that. They aren't big enough. They can't make enough product to do it. They don't want to make the kind of products the average camera buyer buys in large volume at large chain stores. They cant to compete with Canon and Nikon. Ricoh has to do something else. They have to make a product that a smaller number of people want to buy (so they can make a smaller number of them in their limited-volume facilities), that they don't need to advertise, and that those people are willing to search for (in the West) to get it.

10-04-2014, 12:59 PM	#455
kadajawi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 2,799	Originally posted by monochrome You still don't understand 'compete'. High capital investment, high marketing expense high volume, low profit margin, BigBox distribution is required to compete with Nikon and Canon. Pentax simply cannot do that. They aren't big enough. They can't make enough product to do it. They don't want to make the kind of products the average camera buyer buys in large volume at large chain stores. They cant to compete with Canon and Nikon. Ricoh has to do something else. They have to make a product that a smaller number of people want to buy (so they can make a smaller number of them in their limited-volume facilities), that they don't need to advertise, and that those people are willing to search for (in the West) to get it. So basically you say they should stop with that APS-C/FF nonsense (or at the very least not do a FF camera) and only make the 645Z and the Q from now on? They should stop making cameras for most people in this forum? I don't think that's what Ricoh had in mind, when they bought Pentax, though that is the direction they have steered Pentax into (or allowed Pentax to go in that direction). DSLRs are well covered by Canikon, especially on the FF side, Canikon leaves some room for Pentax in the APS-C segment, but I don't think there is any in the FF segment. Full frame mirrorless is well covered by Sony, top of the line APS-C is well covered by Samsung. Olympus and Panasonic cover the smaller than APS-C but not too small market, and Panasonic, Sony and Samsung do video really well, while Olympus has better stabilization than Pentax. Rangefinders are well covered by Fuji and Leica, and traditionally not a strength of Pentax anyway. Is it the colorful camera market that Pentax should do? Btw., Ricoh Pentax is larger than Nikon, IIRC, and brands like Sony, Olympus, Panasonic and Samsung have (or had) less marketshare than Pentax and could get into shops (unlike Pentax).

10-04-2014, 01:21 PM	#456
ElJamoquio Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 4,873	Canon and Nikon cover the FF market well. They cover the APS-C market just as well.

10-04-2014, 02:02 PM	#457
kadajawi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 2,799	Originally posted by ElJamoquio Canon and Nikon cover the FF market well. They cover the APS-C market just as well. Not exactly. Canon and Nikon make their semi-pro/pro APS-C cameras larger than necessary, so there is a niche left for a more travelling oriented semi-pro/pro DSLR, the K-3. As compact as an entry level camera, but as well built, if not better, than the top of the line models from Canikon. That's why I am with Pentax. That and ergonomics. In FF though, can they really make it much smaller, especially considering that Pentax' sensor assembly has to be bigger than those used by Canikon? Unless they drop SR. And can they deliver a superior viewfinder (bigger?) and yet a smaller camera? Btw. I doubt that Pentax does not want to produce as many cameras as they can, that their production facilities are not big enough. If they aren't, they can expand, or people simply have to wait a bit for their camera. And it's not like a FF Pentax is going to be a hit that Pentax won't be able to produce fast enough.

10-04-2014, 03:32 PM	#458
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by kadajawi So basically you say they should stop with that APS-C/FF nonsense (or at the very least not do a FF camera) and only make the 645Z and the Q from now on? They should stop making cameras for most people in this forum? I don't think that's what Ricoh had in mind, when they bought Pentax, though that is the direction they have steered Pentax into (or allowed Pentax to go in that direction). DSLRs are well covered by Canikon, especially on the FF side, Canikon leaves some room for Pentax in the APS-C segment, but I don't think there is any in the FF segment. Full frame mirrorless is well covered by Sony, top of the line APS-C is well covered by Samsung. Olympus and Panasonic cover the smaller than APS-C but not too small market, and Panasonic, Sony and Samsung do video really well, while Olympus has better stabilization than Pentax. Rangefinders are well covered by Fuji and Leica, and traditionally not a strength of Pentax anyway. Is it the colorful camera market that Pentax should do? Btw., Ricoh Pentax is larger than Nikon, IIRC, and brands like Sony, Olympus, Panasonic and Samsung have (or had) less marketshare than Pentax and could get into shops (unlike Pentax). I said nothing of the sort. They make APSc cameras that are different. They will make a FF that is different. The will sell to people who don't want a Nikon or a Canon because the want the combination of features, qualities and Image output uniquely offered by a Pentax camera and lens. They will sell fewer cameras than CaNikon, in fewer locations, at a premium price. The value will be the additional features and the better image quality for the price. People who don't want those characteristics or don't want to pay the price or don't want to go to the trouble to find Pentax will buy Canon or Nikon. That's fine. Ricoh will be profitable. Ricoh Corporation is half the size of Canon and twice the size of Nikon. Ricoh Imaging is nowhere near either imaging company in revenue. The specific brand items you referred to in stores are showing high-volume, low-margin consumer electronic products. Ricoh Imaging doesn't make products in those market slices for distribution in the West. The K-500 didin't work very well. We really have to stop expecting Pentax to meet Canon and Nikon in the market and steal their market share. It isn't going to happen. They aren't even going to try to do that. They're a different company with a different business model.

10-04-2014, 04:05 PM	#459
Poit Banned Join Date: Feb 2013 Location: Canberra, Australia Posts: 423 Original Poster	Hmmm, this discussion is a bit daft. Of course Pentax/Ricoh are in competition with Canon & Nikon. There is a (decreasingly) finite number of customers for DSLR cameras, and every manufacturer is eager for those customers to come their way or stay with them - that's competition in it's simplest form! Of course Ricoh would like substantial numbers of Canikon users to come their way. Look at the marketing for the 645z. Look at their delight when the 645z sales outstripped supply. Sure, Pentax operates on much smaller scale (at the moment) than Canon or Nikon, and their business model is to concentrate on quality over quantity, but they do so because that is the only way they can....um.....compete. To suggest that they aim to always be a small scale operation is madness, and to suggest that they don't want to attract more customers (including Canikon users) is also madness. I agree though, to suggest that they are going to be on the same scale as Canikon in the near-medium term is unrealistic, but I bet they do have aspirations to be so in the long term. Look at the topic of his very thread. Why does Ricoh/Pentax want to be 'different'? So they can...um....compete for those ever-so-limited customers.

10-04-2014, 07:09 PM	#460
ElJamoquio Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 4,873	Hell, Pentax execs have said they want to be a "third full-line manufacturer" or some words to that effect. I think we're making this more complex than it actually is.

10-04-2014, 07:29 PM	#462
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Originally posted by Poit To suggest that they aim to always be a small scale operation is madness I agree. I'm sure Ricoh would be much happier selling 10 million DSLR's a year than 500,000. Going big can generate problems, but it can also generate opportunities too. I bet if Nikon or Canon failed in some big way in 2015 (eg all their new DSLRs turned out to be horrible duds, or in some other way consumers turned against them, which can happen these days surprisingly quickly), I am sure Pentax would be very happy to open five more lens and camera factories to fill the gap, and would probably rush deploy 3 new FF models too.

10-04-2014, 07:31 PM	#463
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by Poit To suggest that they aim to always be a small scale operation is madness, and to suggest that they don't want to attract more customers (including Canikon users) is also madness. If attracting more Nikon and Canon buyers means they have to act like Nikon and Canon as a business, then no, they don't want those Nikon and Canon customers.

10-04-2014, 07:38 PM	#464
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by rawr I agree. I'm sure Ricoh would be much happier selling 10 million DSLR's a year than 500,000. Going big can generate problems, but it can also generate opportunities too. I bet if Nikon or Canon failed in some big way in 2015 (eg all their new DSLRs turned out to be horrible duds, or in some other way consumers turned against them, which can happen these days surprisingly quickly), I am sure Pentax would be very happy to open five more lens and camera factories to fill the gap, and would probably rush deploy 3 new FF models too. It won't happen that fast. Canon and Nikon aren't financially strapped. By the time Ricoh (and everyone else) stepped in Canon and Nikon would have recovered, at last somewhat. You simply don't build a modern manufacturing plant in six months - it takes several years. Olympus? Maybe, Sony? Who knows what's really happening there. Fuji? They feel pretty strong. Just wait for the GoPro kiddies to move on to the next neat thing. How's that 1250 P/E stock going to do then? I don't believe they want to stay small forever any more than anyone else does. I just don't believe they are able to ramp up to compete effectively against 80% of the market in anything like the short or intermediate term. 30 years - sure, by growth and acquisition, just like they did in office equipment. Which is, in fact, their stated goal.

10-04-2014, 07:55 PM	#465
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Although they do pull out some surprises sometimes, Ricoh does seem to be a slow-and-steady company not really working for short-term wins or growth spurts. It tests the patience of customers sometimes - like with FF - but it is probably a sustainable way to evolve the company. I guess Ricoh better hope that any new Pentax FF they make doesn't become a smash hit with reviewers and consumers ...