Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-09-2015, 12:29 PM   #16
Pentaxian
Not a Number's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 3,894
The Pixel Shift technology most likely requires a hardware upgrade - the very least being the controller for shake reduction. If it could be achieved simply through firmware they would have implemented the 1.5 EV increase long ago.

05-10-2015, 04:32 AM   #17
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,883
QuoteOriginally posted by LensBeginner Quote
Because if the do, you won't buy the K-3II, simple as that methinks...
I think it would be a wise move to give the PS function to the current K3 owners in a firmware upgrade, (and stop selling the K3 at the same time).
The current K3 owners would probably not buy the K3II anyway, however they would be very happy and feel that Pentax care and so on.

So Pentax (Ricoh) would get a lot of goodwill with out missing out in sales.
05-10-2015, 06:20 AM   #18
Forum Member




Join Date: Dec 2014
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 74
What about the 86k tracking. Any news on that coming to k3?
05-10-2015, 06:23 AM   #19
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Rochester, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,811
QuoteOriginally posted by Gimbal Quote
I think it would be a wise move to give the PS function to the current K3 owners in a firmware upgrade, (and stop selling the K3 at the same time).
The current K3 owners would probably not buy the K3II anyway, however they would be very happy and feel that Pentax care and so on.

So Pentax (Ricoh) would get a lot of goodwill with out missing out in sales.

Do you know one of the reasons that Kodak want under? Lots of goodwill at the expense of sales. Those days are over. Goodwill is to try to keep your big customers happy. We are not big customers of Ricoh.

Plus I doubt that the implementation of pixel shift technology is merely a firmware update.

05-10-2015, 08:20 AM   #20
Lens Buying Addict
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 19,428
QuoteOriginally posted by gaweidert Quote
Do you know one of the reasons that Kodak want under? Lots of goodwill at the expense of sales. Those days are over. Goodwill is to try to keep your big customers happy. We are not big customers of Ricoh.

Plus I doubt that the implementation of pixel shift technology is merely a firmware update.
As an accounting term Goodwill merely reflects the hypothetical asset value of the Brand Name on the Balance Sheet. Sure, Kodak had lots of Goodwill.

Goodwill doesn't pay salaries, medical and pensions - especially for those no longer employed and producing revenue. Cash Flow pays ongoing expenses and Cash Flow dropped off a cliff when digital came in - even though Kodak was essentially the first to commercialize digital cameras. But the Kodak Brand was so deeply associated with film that the consuming public couldn't accept a Kodak digital camera as new, different, modern and worth owning.

Unfortunately management borrowed against Goodwill, an hypothetical asset, to support legacy costs while they tried to reposition the company.

The legacy costs are what took Kodak under.
05-10-2015, 11:20 AM   #21
Pentaxian
Driline's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: IOWA Where the Tall Corn Grows
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,895
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
the consuming public couldn't accept a Kodak digital camera as new, different, modern and worth owning.
And the fact that the Kodak name was synonymous with "cheap'. Like K-Mart and Wal-Mart.
05-10-2015, 01:22 PM   #22
Lens Buying Addict
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 19,428
QuoteOriginally posted by Driline Quote
And the fact that the Kodak name was synonymous with "cheap'. Like K-Mart and Wal-Mart.
Instamatic and Disc cameras were 'Everyman' cameras but they weren't necessarily cheap - they were just your grandmother's and your parents' cameras, and 'we' were so much more sophisticated and better-off that Kodak didn't work as 'our' totems.

Canon, Minolta, Ricoh, Yashica and others started differentiating themselves in the 80's with automatic rangefinder film cameras - auto-advance and battery-powered flash were advances twenty-somethings could use to distinguish themselves from Mom and Dad. Kodak made them, too, but they weren't hip.

The dSLR conversion of the 00's was just an extension of the same imitation hipster posturing. Grandma and Mom and Dad had finally gotten a digital compact camera and a PC - didn't matter what brand - but an ILC was a step UP from the humble background.

We still have several and they still work just fine.
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!
breath, camera, dslr, feature, ii, k-3, k3, pentax k-3, pixel, prototype k-3 ii, rep, shift, store
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sorry, Pentax - I'm NOT buying the K-3 II. PALADIN85020 Pentax K-3 38 04-27-2015 12:36 PM
Lurked here for months, today I put the order in for a K-3 ecitraro Welcomes and Introductions 10 05-25-2014 07:12 PM
Today I handled a Sony A7 LFLee Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 42 03-07-2014 10:18 PM
Handled a K7 today Duch Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 17 01-27-2010 02:33 PM
handled a K-7 today uccemebug Pentax DSLR Discussion 11 07-01-2009 06:48 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:06 AM. | See also: NikonForums.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