[Laurentiu Cristofor]

From who I have spoken to, Pentax seems to do well in France, and possibly in some other parts of Europe ... cannot remember seeing any figures though ... still far behind Canikon, but in front of Sony DSLR's IMHO.

Over the past couple of years Sony has invested more on MILCs and SLTs than on DSLRs. They have finally announced that they are not going to release any more DSLRs - not a big surprise. So, I sure hope Pentax sells more DSLRs than a company that stops producing them.

Globally, Sony must sell more A mount equipment than Pentax does K mount, or Sigma wouldn't produce lenses for them that they don't produce for Pentax. They have a FF SLT camera in the pipeline and there is a rumor of a camera using square 36x36 sensor.

[philbaum]

Over the past couple of years Sony has invested more on MILCs and SLTs than on DSLRs. They have finally announced that they are not going to release any more DSLRs - not a big surprise. So, I sure hope Pentax sells more DSLRs than a company that stops producing them.

Globally, Sony must sell more A mount equipment than Pentax does K mount, or Sigma wouldn't produce lenses for them that they don't produce for Pentax. They have a FF SLT camera in the pipeline and there is a rumor of a camera using square 36x36 sensor.

I understand that Sony has a 100% share of the SLT market Thanks, thats an interesting bit of news. Must mean that Sony is selling enough SLTs to convince them its a better long-term proposition than staying the course with dslrs.

Does anyone know if building a SLT reduces the cost compared to conventional dslrs by eliminating the mirror mechanism?? I haven't followed Sony prices at all. If it does reduce the cost, then Sony may have an effective strategy versus the Canikon FF models.

[Boris]

I wonder if Leica has less market share than Pentax. It might be true, but does Leica really care?

[Philoslothical]

As long as Pentax has enough market share to ensure the stability of the company, and to periodically refresh their product line, I really don't care about pissing contests between brand names. Pentax makes a good product, I'm very content using it, that's good enough for me.

I think if Pentax ever did eclipse Canon or Nikon that their general product quality would likely suffer in some ways. Canon cuts corners and uses flimsy plastic bodies for a reason. Nikon gimps basic functions like metering in most of their models for a reason. Pentax seems above these tactics for the most part, despite being smaller.

[slackercruster]

As long as Pentax has enough market share to ensure the stability of the company, and to periodically refresh their product line, I really don't care about pissing contests between brand names. Pentax makes a good product, I'm very content using it, that's good enough for me.

I think if Pentax ever did eclipse Canon or Nikon that their general product quality would likely suffer in some ways. Canon cuts corners and uses flimsy plastic bodies for a reason. Nikon gimps basic functions like metering in most of their models for a reason. Pentax seems above these tactics for the most part, despite being smaller.

Someone on the forum asked why companies discontinue great products. Companies are always having young guns come on board and they stir things up. Loads of engineers must keep engineering to keep their job. Companies get bought and sold, dismantled or raped and things change. An in this day and age, change usually means fudging the consumer and more $ for the gready companies.

It would be nice to depend on an stable, dependable Pentax. But history does not favor such things. That is why I stock 6 Pentax bodies all running on AA batts. I have a good supply of what I want to insure against negative change. Sure, I'd love to upgrade into high mp bodies or even FF if Pentax goes that route. But once they abandoned the AA 'in body' power source they lost me. The AA batt abiltiy was the only reason I started with Pentax digital, or I would have gone the Nikon dig route.

But as long as Pentax does not produce problem childs, they should keep their loyal crew on board.

[kenyee]

There was an interesting stat about the Nikon D800 preorders at B&H...there were 45K orders. That's what Pentax sells in DSLRs all year IIRC...it's a pretty staggering realization of how small a fish you are in the Canikon pond...that's one mail order company doing preorders on a full-frame body that not all Nikonians can afford...

[GibbyTheMole]

It would be nice to depend on an stable, dependable Pentax. But history does not favor such things.

What gives you the impression Canons or Nikons are inherently more dependable than Pentax? I've shot thousands of frames with Pentax DSLRs and have never had even a slight glitch with them. Mine aren't even top tier "pro" Pentax bodies, either. I understand that some have had negative experiences with Pentax cameras, but I'm sure people have bought a fair share of duds from Canon & Nikon. As a matter of fact, the sensor went kaput in my Canon camera after only light use, and Canon didn't make it right with me, either.

I'm not too worried about the small market share Pentax has, either. Armitron sells more watches than Patek Philippe... Sony sells more stereo equipment than McIntosh Labs... GM sells more cars than Bugatti. Quality & quantity have little to do with each other. People who look down their nose at Pentax are really just advertising their own ignorance.

As long as Pentax keeps their head above water and continue to make good DSLRs that support the K-mount, I'm a happy camper.

---

Last edited by GibbyTheMole; 03-22-2012 at 07:07 AM.

[monochrome]

Someone on the forum asked why companies discontinue great products. Companies are always having young guns come on board and they stir things up. Loads of engineers must keep engineering to keep their job. Companies get bought and sold, dismantled or raped and things change. An in this day and age, change usually means fudging the consumer and more $ for the gready companies.

It would be nice to depend on an stable, dependable Pentax. But history does not favor such things. That is why I stock 6 Pentax bodies all running on AA batts. I have a good supply of what I want to insure against negative change. Sure, I'd love to upgrade into high mp bodies or even FF if Pentax goes that route. But once they abandoned the AA 'in body' power source they lost me. The AA batt abiltiy was the only reason I started with Pentax digital, or I would have gone the Nikon dig route.

But as long as Pentax does not produce problem childs, they should keep their loyal crew on board.

How much more money would you pay for the attributes you desire? That is the question you must honestly answer.

The most important fact of the product quality / product pricing decision is that consumers as a group are cheap sons of bitches. Despite everything we claim here as individuals, as consumers, as a group, we will not pay up for quality. Consequently companies drive relentlessly to lower the costs of their products so they can lower the selling prices of their products.

Here was my answer to that question. Companies aren't as evil as you imply. They are obligated to earn a return on their invested capital and produce a product that customers will buy at a price. As Plant and Equipment wears out new capital must be invested in new Plant and Equipment, which restarts the entire product/pricing/return-on-invested-capital analysis again.

Further, companies such as LoweAlpine (in the example given) were owned fundamentally buy two small families - started in 1967 by 2 guys in a garage in Denver. They as individuals have every right to retrieve the fruits of their years of labor buildng the company, so they sold it to another enterprise. That buyer has an obligation and a right to earn a return on its invested capital (unless you are a socialist and believe the government should own all capital assets on behalf of the people/laborers of the world). Once the fresh capital is invested, every product must be reevaluated in the context of its contribution to a return on invested capital. Frequently products that made sense at an older and lower cost of capital don't make sense any more at the newer and higher cost of capital. So by allowing the new buyers to get their investment back, with a profit, you are effectively paying the founders of Lowe Alpine when you buy one of the new products after they sell out to another company. Is that wrong?

Pentax was much more than just a camera company. Eyeglasses and medical devices are the most commonly known other divisions. Ever had a Colonoscopy? Pentax had been dismantling itself in small business-unit sales for several years prior to Hoya. Hoya bought the remainder of Pentax to gain the business units that could earn a return on their invested capital. Cameras did not fit in Hoya's expertise set, not could they earn a 20% ROIC (Hoya's stated standard). Hoya could have simply closed the division or sold it for the highest "salvage value." Instead they cleaned up the Balance Sheet and Income Statement, imposed better business practices, kept the company alive and made it saleable at a better price.

Ricoh now is performing the same ROIC analysis on Pentax that any profit-seeking buyer would do. Further, having paid only $123MM for Pentax, it is readily apparent Ricoh had an understanding of how much more capital they would need to invest over a period of years to make Pentax a signifcant additive revenue and profit generator. We can expect Ricoh to invest capital repeatedly over several years to help Pentax return to its recent position as the third camera company after Nikon and Canon.

We just have to give them time to executre their business plan.

What's wrong with that?

[ElJamoquio]

Over the past couple of years Sony has invested more on MILCs and SLTs than on DSLRs. They have finally announced that they are not going to release any more DSLRs - not a big surprise.

Wow, so they've given up on making a decent camera completely.

Good to know that Pentax has one less competitor.

[joe.penn]

Wow, so they've given up on making a decent camera completely.

A possible FF SLT that can shoot 10fps has my interest peaked...

[ElJamoquio]

A possible FF SLT that can shoot 10fps has my interest peaked...

Yeah, I can understand other people wanting that, but I wouldn't trade 30% of my light for it and have 70% of my light go through a somewhat-unknown (to me at least) image degrader.

On top of that I'm not sure what would preclude a FF SLR from having 10 fps - we're not that far away with the k5 right now. In other words, sony might implement the chips well enough to do 10 FPS but then again, so could Pentax/Nikon/etc. next year.

[JinDesu]

Yeah, I can understand other people wanting that, but I wouldn't trade 30% of my light for it and have 70% of my light go through a somewhat-unknown (to me at least) image degrader.

On top of that I'm not sure what would preclude a FF SLR from having 10 fps - we're not that far away with the k5 right now. In other words, sony might implement the chips well enough to do 10 FPS but then again, so could Pentax/Nikon/etc. next year.

Erm.. Nikon D4 is is a FF with 11FPS. And the 1DX can reach 14FPS in mirror lockup mode.

[ElJamoquio]

Erm.. Nikon D4 is is a FF with 11FPS. And the 1DX can reach 14FPS in mirror lockup mode.

Uh, by next year I meant this year. Yeah. But of course that mirror lockup requirement would indicate sony might have an advantage.

[vrrattko]

In order to compete with the big guys (Canon, Nikon) PENTAX has to be innovative. Innovation doesn't come for free. Increasing market share will surely help to fund some research, thus more room for innovation.
In practical sense - It doesn't matter who made camera and lenses as far as they do what I want them to. So far my Pentax equipment never dissapointed me, all of the failures were user errors.

[beholder3]

[deleted]