Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-09-2014, 10:46 AM   #61
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 5,847
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
From Pentax's stand point, there is absolutely no reason to make a full frame camera if no one buys new lenses (from Pentax). The idea that Pentax would make a camera purely so that folks could mount legacy glass on it is absurd. Camera companies make more money on glass than on the camera bodies..
I think you are missing the point. Initially the A7 line generated a lot of demand for old glass, which is fine. Lots of people were buying adapters. This put a lot of FE mount bodies in the hands of consumers. The more bodies Sony can sell the more demand there is going to be for native FE mount glass. Zeiss is even rolling out $1,000 + manual focus primes for FE mount at the end of the month.

Its actually the same marketing plan Pentax has had for with the K-mount. They are trying to get as many bodies on the street as they can because they know this will drive demand for lenses. Premium, high performance bodies can drive demand for higher quality/priced/margin glass. People who buy premium bodies like the K-3 tend to also buy premium lenses.

In the beginning its good that there is a large supply of manual focus legacy glass that can be used, because like Sony, there is no way Pentax can roll out a full line of lenses in the first 2 years. Its just part of the growth of the product line that everyone bitches about.

09-09-2014, 11:04 AM   #62
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,588
FWIW, though I have quite a large number of individual K-series manual focus lenses, it is highly likely I would buy more new lenses for a FF camera than I have for the APS cameras for the strangest reason ---- I have aged and my patience isn't what it was. While one would think the presumably larger, brighter FF viewfinder would allow me to use my manual focus lenses longer, my willingness to push my visual acuity diminishes exponentially with each passing year. There is no real pleasure horsing a K200/2.5 around, or an A35~105' just to say or know I did it, for ALL my hobby shooting. As it is I use them with LiveView (K-01 and K-3) though I don't really like the shooting mechanics of the LCD.

Those and my others are special lenses that I will use when I want to, but to pre-suppose I won't buy new lenses because I have the old ones and am prejudiced against the new, or am too cheap - that's no more true than to pre-suppose I don't buy DA Limiteds now. Most of the time now I just want to get my image efficiently. The issue with a FF mirrorless for manual Focus lenses (assuming no EVF) and ANY long lenses will still be the shooting mechanics, so the EVF is the key.

Of course, if Pentax were to obsolete FA lenses that would be a problem.

To the extent that other owners of large numbers of manual focus K-mount lenses are similar in demographic, the threat of the ageing Pentaxian may also be the opportunity.

Last edited by monochrome; 09-09-2014 at 11:26 AM.
09-09-2014, 11:20 AM   #63
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
GlassJunkie's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: St Petersburg
Photos: Albums
Posts: 381
Rondec has a point on the lenses.....But...

QuoteOriginally posted by Winder Quote
I think you are missing the point. Initially the A7 line generated a lot of demand for old glass, which is fine. Lots of people were buying adapters. This put a lot of FE mount bodies in the hands of consumers. The more bodies Sony can sell the more demand there is going to be for native FE mount glass. Zeiss is even rolling out $1,000 + manual focus primes for FE mount at the end of the month.

Its actually the same marketing plan Pentax has had for with the K-mount. They are trying to get as many bodies on the street as they can because they know this will drive demand for lenses. Premium, high performance bodies can drive demand for higher quality/priced/margin glass. People who buy premium bodies like the K-3 tend to also buy premium lenses.

In the beginning its good that there is a large supply of manual focus legacy glass that can be used, because like Sony, there is no way Pentax can roll out a full line of lenses in the first 2 years. Its just part of the growth of the product line that everyone bitches about.
Sony is clearly working on an advocacy sell for its processors. They make a lot higher margins on chips than toys. The A7 and A7r make sense as advocacy products showcasing their chips. They want to be the Apple of cameras. Their retail stores tell it all. Brookstone will be their next outlet.

Pentax has managed to constrain (strangle if you wish) the third parties from their space. Hoya bought them with the intent of grabbing medical and some economies of scale in lenses with Kenko/ Tokina. Tamron is an outlier. If Pentax continues to make better lenses than the third parties and provide Low/medium/high lines in APSC, and possibly some FF crossover for a TBD FF MILC, they stand to make more money than with helping the " dirty thirdies". Do Leica and Hasselblad promote outsiders? Nope.

---------- Post added 09-09-14 at 02:26 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
FWIW, though I have quite a large number of individual K-series manual focus lenses, it is highly likely I would buy more new lenses for a FF camera than I have for the APS cameras for the strangest reason ---- I have aged and my patience isn't what it was. While one would think the presumably larger, brighter FF viewfinder would allow me to use my manual focus lenses longer, my willingness to push my visual acuity diminishes exponentially with each passing year.

The issue with a FF mirrorless for manual Focus lenses (assuming no EVF) will still be the shooting mechanics, so the EVF is the key.

Of course, if Pentax were to obsolete FA lenses that would be a problem.

To the extent that other owners of large numbers of manual focus K-mount lenses are similar in demographic, the threat of the ageing Pentaxian may also be the opportunity.
I'm sick of lugging stuff around. Thank the RPI/MIT Gods for composites. I must be older than you. I blew my visual acuity in the 80s staring at "green screens"....

Absolutely, particularly with fine work...

I am also going to pre-order my walker mount....

Last edited by GlassJunkie; 09-09-2014 at 11:28 AM.
09-09-2014, 11:43 AM   #64
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 5,847
QuoteOriginally posted by GlassJunkie Quote
If Pentax continues to make better lenses than the third parties and provide Low/medium/high lines in APSC, and possibly some FF crossover for a TBD FF MILC, they stand to make more money than with helping the " dirty thirdies". Do Leica and Hasselblad promote outsiders?
You mean "When Pentax gets back to making better lenses than the third parties"....
its been 10 years since Pentax was making real premium glass that could compete with Zeiss or VL and Sigma has pushed past Pentax when it comes to speed and quality. Even Tamron is currently making some excellent glass, just not in K-mount. Tokina is still in the back of the pack.

09-09-2014, 11:53 AM   #65
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,588
QuoteOriginally posted by GlassJunkie Quote
I must be older than you. I blew my visual acuity in the 80s staring at "green screens"....
Modern medicine is pretty awesome. My employer and I may have spent the equivalent of a 645Z and the full complement of current-issue 645 lenses on after-market parts for my eyes over the prior 5 years, but I can see better now than I did in 2007. Remarkably, the new diopter assy. in the K-3 allows me uncorrected right-eye shooting, something I haven't been able to do since 1990. Then again, I can't use the LCD uncorrected, so the game is on - its like an LX all over again.
09-09-2014, 12:01 PM   #66
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
GlassJunkie's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: St Petersburg
Photos: Albums
Posts: 381
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
Modern medicine is pretty awesome. My employer and I may have spent the equivalent of a 645Z and the full complement of current-issue 645 lenses on after-market parts for my eyes over the prior 5 years, but I can see better now than I did in 2007. Remarkably, the new diopter assy. in the K-3 allows me uncorrected right-eye shooting, something I haven't been able to do since 1990. Then again, I can't use the LCD uncorrected, so the game is on - its like an LX all over again.
My Opthamologist type makes me eat spinach every day. I like the diopter too.... That take off the eyecup/slide thing was a dog... Same uncorrected right eye here too. An ergonomic win. If I forget and have glasses on, I can tweak it on the fly... Nice...

I could use the LCD uncorrected, If Pentax sold a 12" grip extension kit...

---------- Post added 09-09-14 at 03:15 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Winder Quote
You mean "When Pentax gets back to making better lenses than the third parties"....
its been 10 years since Pentax was making real premium glass that could compete with Zeiss or VL and Sigma has pushed past Pentax when it comes to speed and quality. Even Tamron is currently making some excellent glass, just not in K-mount. Tokina is still in the back of the pack.
I have had older and current sigmas, most long. Can't compete with FA/FA* and DA* glass. They have longer offerings that are cheap and almost disposable. OK... They don't all interface with SR and other functions. Will sell the last siggy when the Long-tele zoom comes out, assuming the Pentax tests better (in our hands).

I agree that Pentax FA is missed vs the Germans. I had a 300mm f4.5 "F" and loved it. Problem is that after 100 frames, the DA* 300mm F$ beat it and it is lighter... Easier to hold too. I wasnt happy with the F300mm 4.5 tripod mount (but it would bolt well to the outside of the shuttle).

I have been Very happy with DA* glass, (except the 16-50 SDM I replaced), but Pentax was GREAT on the repair and hustling. Very nice leaders in Denver.

Tamron Innovates Long reach well, good for walkarounds, we have a 18-7-270 SDM ans used the 18-250 before it. Pincushion is mild and washes out in post produx easily, so a good application. I just bought the 100mm macroWR and tested it against my prized (and twice as heavy FA). WR batched but didn't beat it. Selling the FA to save weight.

Sigma and Tamron are ok line fillers for me, never the first choice, usually while waiting for something better... My nominee for best Tamron, the last version 90mm macro. Best Siggy 100-300 f4. waiting for a replacement to the 120-400, yup, hoping for less post work...
09-09-2014, 12:42 PM   #67
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
cyberjunkie's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Bologna, Amsterdam, Chiang Mai
Posts: 442
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by GlassJunkie Quote
Pentax has licensed far more designs to lens makers (4 I know of) than the other way around. In early AF, SAFOX and most of the Nikon AFs came from Pentax. SMC (multicoaring) was an Asahi discovery, all of the majors paid royalties for years.....
Of course you're right, but all that belongs to the past.
Why don't mention also the instant return mirror?
Nowadays the distinguishing traits of Pentax cameras reside in the body. Not in the lenses.
Those who mention recent Pentax patents, or new designs in the optical field, forget to point out that many of those lenses are actually made by third parties.
My best guess is that there could be more lenses produced by third parties than we already know.
Nobody knows the agreement between Ricoh and Hoya, but i'm almost sure that IF there has been an agreement about the cooperation between Pentax and Tokina, it won't be a long lasting one.
Sometimes looking back at the past helps to imagine what the future will reserve.

I am not answering to GlassJunkie, who always made rational and balanced remarks, i am just using this post as my (hopefully last) answer to a few assumptions that some people take for granted, but which are very disputable.
The assumption that cameras are made just to sell lenses is a pure nonsense, at least for Pentax. Pentax is no Canon. Pentax is no Nikon. Just check how many expensive highly profitable Pentax DA lenses are available on Ebay, or on sale in a major shop specialized in photography. You'll see plenty of Canon L lenses, plenty of high-cost Nikon ones, and very few (most of the times none) top-tier Pentax lenses!
Do you really think that with such a low volume of sales Pentax/Ricoh is really dependent on them?
Do you really think that a FF camera sold for 3 thousands dollars makes no profit?
Do you realize that the actual production cost, excluding R&D and possibly the cost of the sensor, is more or less the same? Do you really think that a well made APS-C camera like a K-3 is so cheaper?
Do you know that in consumer electronics the price variance is related to a marketing strategy, not to actual production/assembly costs?
It is true that the big money comes from selling highly profitable lenses... but if you have a shrinking market share, who will buy those lenses?
An uncrippled super-open, super-compatible FF body is the only way to regain the minimum of market share needed to survive. Do you really think that having no good third party lenses would help Pentax sell their own, often overpriced glasses? Pentax is no Leica either... it won't work!
My assumption is that an "open" FF camera (kind of a Linux camera ) embracing compatibility at its fullest, without protectionist second-thoughts, would have a relevance no other Pentax product had (at least in recent times), and could reverse the negative momentum attracting a lot of attention and selling well, allowing to reposition the brand, to sell other cheaper products, and in the long run even helping to sell those expensive Pentax lenses that few people are actually buying TODAY.

Of course the interpretation of reality is always arbitrary. Is my MacBook really grey, or am i just seeing it that way?
I love to read about different opinions, just don't ask me to concur...
Pentax is not in the middle of the chessboard, the best moves are simply not possible. Loosing the support of third party lens makers is a very serious sign, how is it possible that so many people don't get it?
The problem is not that i egoistically want Pentax to release a FF to use my wide/normal film lenses, the problem is that at this stage the biggest asset for Pentax are those lenses, their number, their quality, their price. IMHO that is the only leverage Pentax has to reverse the trend, all the other good things mentioned in many posts are simply not enough. A bold move is needed, there is no other option to get out from the side of the checkboard.

cheers

Paolo

P.S.
Dear GlassJunkie, i retire what i wrote about your balanced remarks!
How can you compare Pentax with Leica and Hasselblad, RE: third party lenses?
Are you OK?
They preside a small niche. That niche is already overcrowded, and the buyers are too snobby to buy japanese!
My cheap Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8, purchased second-hand for a very nice price, is simply outstanding. Maybe i have a very good copy... mmhh, i doubt.
I can't compare it with the super expensive Pentax f/2.8 equivalent... but i still have to see a single serious test where the Pentax fares better!
Am i ready to sacrifice all that hard earned money for a slightly better build and (perhaps, not sure) a imperceptibly faster AF? Well, that's something i know for sure: NOPE!

Last edited by cyberjunkie; 09-09-2014 at 01:04 PM.
09-09-2014, 01:07 PM   #68
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,401
QuoteOriginally posted by cyberjunkie Quote
Of course you're right, but all that belongs to the past.
Why don't mention also the instant return mirror?
Nowadays the distinguishing traits of Pentax cameras reside in the body. Not in the lenses.
Those who mention recent Pentax patents, or new designs in the optical field, forget to point out that many of those lenses are actually made by third parties.
My best guess is that there could be more lenses produced by third parties than we already know.
Nobody knows the agreement between Ricoh and Hoya, but i'm almost sure that IF there has been an agreement about the cooperation between Pentax and Tokina, it won't be a long lasting one.
Sometimes looking back at the past helps to imagine what the future will reserve.

I am not answering to GlassJunkie, who always made rational and balanced remarks, i am just using this post as my (hopefully last) answer to a few assumptions that some people take for granted, but which are very disputable.
The assumption that cameras are made just to sell lenses is a pure nonsense, at least for Pentax. Pentax is no Canon. Pentax is no Nikon. Just check how many expensive highly profitable Pentax DA lenses are available on Ebay, or on sale in a major shop specialized in photography. You'll see plenty of Canon L lenses, plenty of high-cost Nikon ones, and very few (most of the times none) top-tier Pentax lenses!
Do you really think that with such a low volume of sales Pentax/Ricoh is really dependent on them?
Do you really think that a FF camera sold for 3 thousands dollars makes no profit?
Do you realize that the actual production cost, excluding R&D and possibly the cost of the sensor, is more or less the same? Do you really think that a well made APS-C camera like a K-3 is so cheaper?
Do you know that in consumer electronics the price variance is related to a marketing strategy, not to actual production/assembly costs?
It is true that the big money comes from selling highly profitable lenses... but if you have a shrinking market share, who will buy those lenses?
An uncrippled super-open, super-compatible FF body is the only way to regain the minimum of market share needed to survive. Do you really think that having no good third party lenses would help Pentax sell their own, often overpriced glasses? Pentax is no Leica either... it won't work!
My assumption is that an "open" FF camera (kind of a Linux camera ) embracing compatibility at its fullest, without protectionist second-thoughts, would have a relevance no other Pentax product had (at least in recent times), and could reverse the negative momentum attracting a lot of attention and selling well, allowing to reposition the brand, to sell other cheaper products, and in the long run even helping to sell those expensive Pentax lenses that few people are actually buying TODAY.

Of course the interpretation of reality is always arbitrary. Is my MacBook really grey, or am i just seeing it that way?
I love to read about different opinions, just don't ask me to concur...
Pentax is not in the middle of the chessboard, the best moves are simply not possible. Loosing the support of third party lens makers is a very serious sign, how is it possible that so many people don't get it?
The problem is not that i egoistically want Pentax to release a FF to use my wide/normal film lenses, the problem is that at this stage the biggest asset for Pentax are those lenses, their number, their quality, their price. IMHO that is the only leverage Pentax has to reverse the trend, all the other good things mentioned in many posts are simply not enough. A bold move is needed, there is no other option to get out from the side of the checkboard.

cheers

Paolo

P.S.
Dear GlassJunkie, i retire what i wrote about your balanced remarks!
How can you compare Pentax with Leica and Hasselblad, RE: third party lenses?
Are you OK?
My cheap Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8, purchased second-hand for a very nice price, is simply outstanding. Maybe i have a very good copy... mmhh, i doubt.
I can't compare it with the super expensive Pentax f/2.8 equivalent... but i still have to see a single serious test where the Pentax fares better!
Am i ready to sacrifice all that hard earned money for a slightly better build and (perhaps, not sure) a imperceptibly faster AF? Well, that's something i know for sure: NOPE!
Pentax has always been a glass maker first and camera maker second. Just because they sell slower aperture lenses now, doesn't mean that the quality has changed.

As to whether a three thousand dollar camera turns a profit or not, depends on how many units sell. And if it is Pentax and few are sold world wide, then yes, it could easily lose money. That is one of the reasons that medium formats are priced so much higher, even than full frame cameras. Costs have to be made back on many fewer units.

09-09-2014, 03:24 PM   #69
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 5,847
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
Pentax has always been a glass maker first and camera maker second. Just because they sell slower aperture lenses now, doesn't mean that the quality has changed.

As to whether a three thousand dollar camera turns a profit or not, depends on how many units sell. And if it is Pentax and few are sold world wide, then yes, it could easily lose money. That is one of the reasons that medium formats are priced so much higher, even than full frame cameras. Costs have to be made back on many fewer units.
Pentax is simply a market brand name now. We use the name as though they are an entity out of habit. They are no longer a glass maker first. The quality of the screw drive motors is still just as good as it was 10 years ago, and that is part of the problem. I would love for Ricoh to invest in faster, quiet screw drive to keep the lenses small, but there has been little improvement in 10 years. The 31mm is still a phenomenal lens. But the problem is there has not been any really good glass since the 31mm. They still make the old glass just as good as they always have, but do they have what it takes to design and build a new and improved 31mm with faster, silent AF and better IQ? The DA 20-40 got the Limited name, but not the optical quality. Hoya gutted the talent pool. What's left?

I'm hoping that Ricoh will invest in production of premium glass, but I haven't seen a new lens come out of "Pentax/Ricoh" that can compete with Zeiss and 10 years Pentax could compete with Zeiss. Can they compete with Zeiss today? Can they compete with Olympus? Can they compete with Fujinon? 10 years ago I would have said "yes". Today? I'm not so sure. I'm waiting to see. I'm not sure they can even compete with the Sigma Art line. Sony is expected to roll out a new 50MP sensor after Photokina.
(SR5) Big Sony camera announcement 3-4 months AFTER Photokina. New high resolution sensor cameras coming! | sonyalpharumors


I'm on the fence. It looks like the Nikon D750 is finally going to be the Nikon that gets my money. BUT.... do I invest in OVF technology at this point? Do I wait for the second generation of Sony A7 bodies and hope Sony hires better camera designers? They are expected to launch several new lenses very soon.
09-09-2014, 04:58 PM   #70
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,401
QuoteOriginally posted by Winder Quote
Pentax is simply a market brand name now. We use the name as though they are an entity out of habit. They are no longer a glass maker first. The quality of the screw drive motors is still just as good as it was 10 years ago, and that is part of the problem. I would love for Ricoh to invest in faster, quiet screw drive to keep the lenses small, but there has been little improvement in 10 years. The 31mm is still a phenomenal lens. But the problem is there has not been any really good glass since the 31mm. They still make the old glass just as good as they always have, but do they have what it takes to design and build a new and improved 31mm with faster, silent AF and better IQ? The DA 20-40 got the Limited name, but not the optical quality. Hoya gutted the talent pool. What's left?

I'm hoping that Ricoh will invest in production of premium glass, but I haven't seen a new lens come out of "Pentax/Ricoh" that can compete with Zeiss and 10 years Pentax could compete with Zeiss. Can they compete with Zeiss today? Can they compete with Olympus? Can they compete with Fujinon? 10 years ago I would have said "yes". Today? I'm not so sure. I'm waiting to see. I'm not sure they can even compete with the Sigma Art line. Sony is expected to roll out a new 50MP sensor after Photokina.
(SR5) Big Sony camera announcement 3-4 months AFTER Photokina. New high resolution sensor cameras coming! | sonyalpharumors


I'm on the fence. It looks like the Nikon D750 is finally going to be the Nikon that gets my money. BUT.... do I invest in OVF technology at this point? Do I wait for the second generation of Sony A7 bodies and hope Sony hires better camera designers? They are expected to launch several new lenses very soon.
I think the DA *55, DA *60-250, and DA *50-135 are all excellent lenses that have been designed since the FA 31.

You are correct about the slowness of auto focus in relation to screw drive and SDM, although part of the issue is that Pentax has designed their lenses to be OK manual focus lenses (long focus throws). Even with a really zippy ring type motor, they still wouldn't be super speedy. The DA 40 has a really short focus throw and it gets where it is going pretty fast.
09-09-2014, 05:26 PM - 1 Like   #71
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 5,847
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I think the DA *55, DA *60-250, and DA *50-135 are all excellent lenses that have been designed since the FA 31.

You are correct about the slowness of auto focus in relation to screw drive and SDM, although part of the issue is that Pentax has designed their lenses to be OK manual focus lenses (long focus throws). Even with a really zippy ring type motor, they still wouldn't be super speedy. The DA 40 has a really short focus throw and it gets where it is going pretty fast.
I had the DA* 55mm and the 77mm LTD in my shopping cart on the B&H website. I was going to take advantage of the $150 off of each. I decided to wait. If I had confidence in the brand I would have bought them. Until I know what direct Ricoh is going I won't be investing in the system. Part of me wants to move to Fuji simply because they appear to have a clear plan and they actually communicate that plan to the customers. Part of me wants to pick up the new Zeiss Loxia 50mm F/2 and the A7r and just make the jump to FF mirrorless. Keep my K-3 and current kit or faster moving work.

I was a Canon FD shooter and made the switch to EF mount, and then left Canon. I bought into the Contax 645 system 9 months before Contax went bust. I was using the Olympus E-3 when it became obvious that there was no future for 4/3. Kind of tired of moving around and dealing with manufactures who can't/won't support their system. I almost switch from Canon to the Sony A900, but I was concerned that Sony was going in a different direction, and they ended up going to the SLT technology which I don't like. I was hoping Ricoh was going to bring some stability and direction to the brand, but we are almost 3 years into the takeover and Ricoh seem lost in the woods. For comparison the Fuji will have 20 lenses released in a 3 year span if they keep to their road map. Sony will have 15 native FE lenses by the end of 2015. It took over 5 years just to get a 1.4x tele from Pentax.
09-09-2014, 05:46 PM   #72
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I think the DA *55, DA *60-250, and DA *50-135 are all excellent lenses that have been designed since the FA 31.
DA 15ltd, DA 35ltd are superb as well.
09-09-2014, 05:47 PM   #73
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,588
QuoteOriginally posted by Winder Quote
I was hoping Ricoh was going to bring some stability and direction to the brand, but we are almost 3 years into the takeover and Ricoh seem lost in the woods.
3 years is not a long time at all to internalize an acquisition of a gutted company. Mine was acquired in January, 2009 and we didn't have a decently profitable quarter until 3Q2013 - and they invested $2BBN more after the acquisition.

It appears to me Ricoh is finally getting its legs under the Penttax 'brand.'
09-09-2014, 08:03 PM   #74
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
GlassJunkie's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: St Petersburg
Photos: Albums
Posts: 381
Let me put your concerns at ease...

QuoteOriginally posted by cyberjunkie Quote
Of course you're right, but all that belongs to the past.
Why don't mention also the instant return mirror?
Nowadays the distinguishing traits of Pentax cameras reside in the body. Not in the lenses.
Those who mention recent Pentax patents, or new designs in the optical field, forget to point out that many of those lenses are actually made by third parties.
My best guess is that there could be more lenses produced by third parties than we already know.
Nobody knows the agreement between Ricoh and Hoya, but i'm almost sure that IF there has been an agreement about the cooperation between Pentax and Tokina, it won't be a long lasting one.
Sometimes looking back at the past helps to imagine what the future will reserve.

I am not answering to GlassJunkie, who always made rational and balanced remarks, i am just using this post as my (hopefully last) answer to a few assumptions that some people take for granted, but which are very disputable.
The assumption that cameras are made just to sell lenses is a pure nonsense, at least for Pentax. Pentax is no Canon. Pentax is no Nikon. Just check how many expensive highly profitable Pentax DA lenses are available on Ebay, or on sale in a major shop specialized in photography. You'll see plenty of Canon L lenses, plenty of high-cost Nikon ones, and very few (most of the times none) top-tier Pentax lenses!
Do you really think that with such a low volume of sales Pentax/Ricoh is really dependent on them?
Do you really think that a FF camera sold for 3 thousands dollars makes no profit?
Do you realize that the actual production cost, excluding R&D and possibly the cost of the sensor, is more or less the same? Do you really think that a well made APS-C camera like a K-3 is so cheaper?
Do you know that in consumer electronics the price variance is related to a marketing strategy, not to actual production/assembly costs?
It is true that the big money comes from selling highly profitable lenses... but if you have a shrinking market share, who will buy those lenses?
An uncrippled super-open, super-compatible FF body is the only way to regain the minimum of market share needed to survive. Do you really think that having no good third party lenses would help Pentax sell their own, often overpriced glasses? Pentax is no Leica either... it won't work!
My assumption is that an "open" FF camera (kind of a Linux camera ) embracing compatibility at its fullest, without protectionist second-thoughts, would have a relevance no other Pentax product had (at least in recent times), and could reverse the negative momentum attracting a lot of attention and selling well, allowing to reposition the brand, to sell other cheaper products, and in the long run even helping to sell those expensive Pentax lenses that few people are actually buying TODAY.

Of course the interpretation of reality is always arbitrary. Is my MacBook really grey, or am i just seeing it that way?
I love to read about different opinions, just don't ask me to concur...
Pentax is not in the middle of the chessboard, the best moves are simply not possible. Loosing the support of third party lens makers is a very serious sign, how is it possible that so many people don't get it?
The problem is not that i egoistically want Pentax to release a FF to use my wide/normal film lenses, the problem is that at this stage the biggest asset for Pentax are those lenses, their number, their quality, their price. IMHO that is the only leverage Pentax has to reverse the trend, all the other good things mentioned in many posts are simply not enough. A bold move is needed, there is no other option to get out from the side of the checkboard.

cheers

Paolo

P.S.
Dear GlassJunkie, i retire what i wrote about your balanced remarks!
How can you compare Pentax with Leica and Hasselblad, RE: third party lenses?
Are you OK?
They preside a small niche. That niche is already overcrowded, and the buyers are too snobby to buy japanese!
My cheap Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8, purchased second-hand for a very nice price, is simply outstanding. Maybe i have a very good copy... mmhh, i doubt.
I can't compare it with the super expensive Pentax f/2.8 equivalent... but i still have to see a single serious test where the Pentax fares better!
Am i ready to sacrifice all that hard earned money for a slightly better build and (perhaps, not sure) a imperceptibly faster AF? Well, that's something i know for sure: NOPE!

I still have my 500mm f8 Tamron Adaptall-2 mirror with a SP7 2x TC and a PK mount. Plus a telescope adapter, flawless condition. Best ever made...
09-10-2014, 06:33 AM   #75
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
cyberjunkie's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Bologna, Amsterdam, Chiang Mai
Posts: 442
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by GlassJunkie Quote
I still have my 500mm f8 Tamron Adaptall-2 mirror with a SP7 2x TC and a PK mount. Plus a telescope adapter, flawless condition. Best ever made...
I am not going to tell you what's the best use for that thing... but i guess you have an idea...

saluti

Paolo
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!
24x36mm, analysis, bodies, body, camera, da*, discussions, dslr, ff, focus, forum, frame, full-frame, glass, glasses, lenses, level, line, money, pentax, people, photography, premium, price, sony, tamron, time
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
why is a full frame Pentax such a holy grail? adwb Pentax Full Frame 427 07-24-2015 12:32 PM
From Full-Frame Sony... to Pentax... to Full-Frame Canon Mr_Canuck Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 42 01-21-2014 12:50 AM
Interesting link on full frame vs film ChopperCharles Pentax DSLR Discussion 7 09-14-2012 09:26 AM
Is a full frame camera worth $1k to $1.3k feasible to make? mannyquinto Pentax DSLR Discussion 17 04-19-2012 01:36 PM
Is a full frame lens on an aps-c, a negative? outsider Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 36 03-30-2011 09:34 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:56 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