One reason why Pentax will never be a major player

kadajawi · 01-01-2014, 12:13 AM

Depends on how good the camera is, really. I'd assume they'd have whatever FF sensor Sony has, which should be good enough. Without the video functions... perhaps 5D pricing? With the video functionality... above the 5D. Maybe have 2 versions, basically the more advanced video functions could sit on a separate board in the K-1, so they can make 2 versions. Perhaps even upgradeable. Some of the added features like two very fast SD slots/SSD support would be beneficial to still photographers too. Imagine bursting at RAW and not running out of buffer.

Mostly depends on if the video stuff makes the camera much more expensive, if not, they may sell it at a 5D price. That should make it very popular.

And yes, they never sold the MZ-D. But they could have. Not sure if it would have hurt Pentax that much... instead Pentax chose to ignore the digital market for too long, which hurt them badly too.

bvg · 01-01-2014, 01:16 AM

Originally posted by jatrax

Well since none of us really knows much of anything and anyone who does know anything is not going to talk, yeah I maintain it is a "ton". Actually I think it would be more like two "tons" but that's just my opinion.

Pentax officials have claimed that FF was in development for years. In this case, they should have a near release version right now!

wpvv · 01-01-2014, 04:11 AM

Bringing out a FF camera with some of the Pentax DNA might be the best marketing Pentax can do - even if the FF camera itself won't break even.

kadajawi · 01-01-2014, 07:04 AM

Originally posted by bvg

Pentax officials have claimed that FF was in development for years. In this case, they should have a near release version right now!

I kind of doubt it. The last interview with Pentax sounded like "we're still evaluating FF, but really it's not that important, is it?". Like, they aren't pouring in significant resources.

**monochrome** · 01-01-2014, 07:20 AM

Originally posted by kadajawi

I kind of doubt it. The last interview with Pentax sounded like "we're still evaluating FF, but really it's not that important, is it?". Like, they aren't pouring in significant resources.

There's always a prototype or near-ready version. The "evaluation" has to do with costing, component sourcing, manufacturing processes and capacity allocation and, of course, market evaluation.

Everything is a marginal choice. If they are working on a FF then they're not working on something else. They don't decide, "Let's build a FF" and just go out and hire thirty new engineers. Then if they make it, they can't make something else with that manufacturing capacity - something else that can't be as profitable as the FF or naturally they'd make the other thing instead. Same goes for the capital allocation to the entire product process. Everything has to be more profitable than doing the next most profitable choice. You keep making those marginal choices until you run out of resources - or until getting more resources is so expensive that the next choice is not profitable. That is the horizon, and a smart company doesn't go over it. Pentax's marginal decision seems to be that allocating resources to FF without starving APSc, Q and 645, plus the entire Ricoh brand. For a comparatively small camera company (Ricoh is large but Pentax isn't) maintaining and growing four product lines and a partner brand is a challenge.

Pentax will release a FF camera. It will be different, and they will do it when whatever is different works the way whatever is different is supposed to work. Whether this year, next year or in ten years, no Marketing Executive is going to openly say in an interview.

enoxatnep · 01-01-2014, 10:57 AM

Well, this seems to be turning into yet another full-frame discussion, but since I'm the OP I guess I'll chime in for a moment.

I'm not a fan of FF currently for the sole reason that, when I pick up a FF Canon or Nikon, it's simply too big and heavy for my tastes, and I definitely don't consider myself a wimp. The only way I'd consider a FF Pentax is if they could make it not much larger and heavier than my K-5. May sound impossible, but that's what certain Apple engineers said to Steve Jobs about creating something as small as an iPod or thin as an iMac ... before they were fired.

**jatrax** · 01-01-2014, 11:43 AM

Originally posted by enoxatnep

The only way I'd consider a FF Pentax is if they could make it not much larger and heavier than my K-5.

+1 on that. The k-3 is only slightly larger than k-5 but the difference is noticeable to me and I don't want anything larger.

ScooterMaxi Jim · 01-01-2014, 08:53 PM

Oh my, we always get back to this topic. The FF body itself isn't much of an issue - and it won't be a key factor in sales. If the idea is to have one so legacy FF users can make the most of their existing lenses - that's a loser. Develop a new lens line? That's interesting - because Pentax volume on the Q line, DA lenses, legacy FA, and 645 is so bountiful that another line of lenses (where profits are normally made) is something the company really needs. A more creative route is needed...

**monochrome** · 01-01-2014, 09:31 PM

Originally posted by ScooterMaxi Jim

Develop a new lens line? That's interesting - because Pentax volume on the Q line, DA lenses, legacy FA, and 645 is so bountiful that another line of lenses (where profits are normally made) is something the company really needs. A more creative route is needed...

Out of curiosity, what precisely is Pentax's volume and profitability on those lines?

**jatrax** · 01-01-2014, 09:39 PM

Originally posted by monochrome

Out of curiosity, what precisely is Pentax's volume and profitability on those lines?

Was wondering the same thing. Would love to see those reports and really see what's happening.

lesmore49 · 01-01-2014, 09:50 PM

Originally posted by enoxatnep

First, in my original post I was referring to flyers for local retailers: Best Buy, Future Shop, Vistek, etc.

I would never bu any camera at a big box store. Limited supply of equipment, generally staff are unfamiliar with camera equipment that is sold....my experience anyways.

I didn't browse for online deals, and my observations were based only what I was seeing in these flyers and as I walked about these local retailers.

You need to go to camera specialists...like London Drugs, Don's....don't think Henry's is in Alberta yet. I'm in Wpg. There are three Henry's, three Don's, one London Drugs...all have Pentax equipment. Since 2007 I've bought three DSLR bodies....and nine Pentax lens. Most was in stock...or could be brought in within a couple of days , a week or a max of two weeks.

Also, I was talking about killer deals; I'm wondering how much $150 off that Pentax lens was percentage-wise? For some for the Canikon lenses I saw, they were hundreds of dollars cheaper and I would argue quite a good discount percentage-wise. That to me defines a "killer" deal, not just a "good" or "nice" one.

I've got some killer deals. I'm pretty good at working online and getting local stores to match prices...or the deals have been there....in the stores. Deals are there...in Canada...but you need to go to specialist stores.

malenisjaj · 01-01-2014, 10:29 PM

Marketing people?! Maybe they killed themselves? ;-)

You Tube

kadajawi · 01-01-2014, 11:17 PM

Originally posted by enoxatnep

Well, this seems to be turning into yet another full-frame discussion, but since I'm the OP I guess I'll chime in for a moment.

I'm not a fan of FF currently for the sole reason that, when I pick up a FF Canon or Nikon, it's simply too big and heavy for my tastes, and I definitely don't consider myself a wimp. The only way I'd consider a FF Pentax is if they could make it not much larger and heavier than my K-5. May sound impossible, but that's what certain Apple engineers said to Steve Jobs about creating something as small as an iPod or thin as an iMac ... before they were fired.

Same here. If you drop the mirror it can easily be done (see the Sony A7), not sure I'd want to loose it though. A bigger mirror/viewfinder is biggest draw towards FF for me, if you're using an electronic viewfinder anyway the size of the sensor doesn't matter.

However there are people who want it. Heck, Pentax could just announce a FF camera, price it a bit out of reach, ... make sure no one gets it. Or buy a 5D, wrap it an a casing that says Pentax and has a Pentax mount and call it a day.

No one needs to buy the thing. The mere existence is what's needed. Perhaps they could indeed develop such a product, even if it is me too and brings nothing new to the table, a stretched out K-3 perhaps, and do small production runs if someone actually buys it. Cause I doubt that many of those who complain they need FF will actually buy one when it's there.

enoxatnep · 01-02-2014, 09:59 AM

Originally posted by lesmore49

I've got some killer deals. I'm pretty good at working online and getting local stores to match prices...or the deals have been there....in the stores. Deals are there...in Canada...but you need to go to specialist stores.

Just to clarify, in my original post I wasn't shopping, only observing what was available in person and not online. I was merely commenting on what I saw non-Pentax wise as I browsed malls/stores leading up to Christmas. For the record, the only brick-and-mortar retailers I've ever bought my equipment from are all in Alberta (haven't needed to buy online, quite frankly) and they're not big-box: The Camera Store, McBain's, Saneal, Vistek (only when desperate!). And yes, I get my deals that way as well by looking online and getting price matches; McBain's is particularly good with doing that.

ScooterMaxi Jim · 01-02-2014, 10:51 AM

Originally posted by ScooterMaxi Jim
Develop a new lens line? That's interesting - because Pentax volume on the Q line, DA lenses, legacy FA, and 645 is so bountiful that another line of lenses (where profits are normally made) is something the company really needs. A more creative route is needed...

Monochrome:
Out of curiosity, what precisely is Pentax's volume and profitability on those lines?

The volume is so high and profits soaring so much that before you know it, the other brands will be hard pressed to decide whether they should be offering only four discrete mount lines, or perhaps a fifth would be advisable.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
How Far Is Pentax From Becoming A Major Player In APS-C?	rbefly	Photographic Industry and Professionals	32	10-30-2013 06:48 AM
One reason why Canon is considered "Professional"	Jodokast96	Photographic Industry and Professionals	17	08-09-2012 05:05 PM
"To me, there's always reason for hope, and never much reason for optimism."	jeffkrol	General Talk	5	07-25-2012 02:58 PM
This Foron Will Never Be The Same	jeffkpotter	General Talk	10	06-12-2009 04:14 PM
This Forum Will Never Be The Same	jeffkpotter	General Talk	45	06-09-2009 06:44 PM

01-01-2014, 12:13 AM	#76
kadajawi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 2,799	Depends on how good the camera is, really. I'd assume they'd have whatever FF sensor Sony has, which should be good enough. Without the video functions... perhaps 5D pricing? With the video functionality... above the 5D. Maybe have 2 versions, basically the more advanced video functions could sit on a separate board in the K-1, so they can make 2 versions. Perhaps even upgradeable. Some of the added features like two very fast SD slots/SSD support would be beneficial to still photographers too. Imagine bursting at RAW and not running out of buffer. Mostly depends on if the video stuff makes the camera much more expensive, if not, they may sell it at a 5D price. That should make it very popular. And yes, they never sold the MZ-D. But they could have. Not sure if it would have hurt Pentax that much... instead Pentax chose to ignore the digital market for too long, which hurt them badly too.

01-01-2014, 01:16 AM	#77
bvg Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Queensland, Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 340	Originally posted by jatrax Well since none of us really knows much of anything and anyone who does know anything is not going to talk, yeah I maintain it is a "ton". Actually I think it would be more like two "tons" but that's just my opinion. Pentax officials have claimed that FF was in development for years. In this case, they should have a near release version right now!

01-01-2014, 04:11 AM	#78
wpvv Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 251	Bringing out a FF camera with some of the Pentax DNA might be the best marketing Pentax can do - even if the FF camera itself won't break even.

01-01-2014, 07:04 AM	#79
kadajawi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 2,799	Originally posted by bvg Pentax officials have claimed that FF was in development for years. In this case, they should have a near release version right now! I kind of doubt it. The last interview with Pentax sounded like "we're still evaluating FF, but really it's not that important, is it?". Like, they aren't pouring in significant resources.

01-01-2014, 07:20 AM	#80
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by kadajawi I kind of doubt it. The last interview with Pentax sounded like "we're still evaluating FF, but really it's not that important, is it?". Like, they aren't pouring in significant resources. There's always a prototype or near-ready version. The "evaluation" has to do with costing, component sourcing, manufacturing processes and capacity allocation and, of course, market evaluation. Everything is a marginal choice. If they are working on a FF then they're not working on something else. They don't decide, "Let's build a FF" and just go out and hire thirty new engineers. Then if they make it, they can't make something else with that manufacturing capacity - something else that can't be as profitable as the FF or naturally they'd make the other thing instead. Same goes for the capital allocation to the entire product process. Everything has to be more profitable than doing the next most profitable choice. You keep making those marginal choices until you run out of resources - or until getting more resources is so expensive that the next choice is not profitable. That is the horizon, and a smart company doesn't go over it. Pentax's marginal decision seems to be that allocating resources to FF without starving APSc, Q and 645, plus the entire Ricoh brand. For a comparatively small camera company (Ricoh is large but Pentax isn't) maintaining and growing four product lines and a partner brand is a challenge. Pentax will release a FF camera. It will be different, and they will do it when whatever is different works the way whatever is different is supposed to work. Whether this year, next year or in ten years, no Marketing Executive is going to openly say in an interview.

01-01-2014, 10:57 AM	#81
enoxatnep Closed Account Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: The edge of nowhere, Alberta, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 467 Original Poster	Well, this seems to be turning into yet another full-frame discussion, but since I'm the OP I guess I'll chime in for a moment. I'm not a fan of FF currently for the sole reason that, when I pick up a FF Canon or Nikon, it's simply too big and heavy for my tastes, and I definitely don't consider myself a wimp. The only way I'd consider a FF Pentax is if they could make it not much larger and heavier than my K-5. May sound impossible, but that's what certain Apple engineers said to Steve Jobs about creating something as small as an iPod or thin as an iMac ... before they were fired.

01-01-2014, 11:43 AM	#82
jatrax Site Supporter Join Date: May 2010 Location: Washington Cascades Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,991	Originally posted by enoxatnep The only way I'd consider a FF Pentax is if they could make it not much larger and heavier than my K-5. +1 on that. The k-3 is only slightly larger than k-5 but the difference is noticeable to me and I don't want anything larger.

01-01-2014, 08:53 PM	#83
ScooterMaxi Jim Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Minnesota Posts: 1,520	Oh my, we always get back to this topic. The FF body itself isn't much of an issue - and it won't be a key factor in sales. If the idea is to have one so legacy FF users can make the most of their existing lenses - that's a loser. Develop a new lens line? That's interesting - because Pentax volume on the Q line, DA lenses, legacy FA, and 645 is so bountiful that another line of lenses (where profits are normally made) is something the company really needs. A more creative route is needed...

01-01-2014, 09:31 PM	#84
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by ScooterMaxi Jim Develop a new lens line? That's interesting - because Pentax volume on the Q line, DA lenses, legacy FA, and 645 is so bountiful that another line of lenses (where profits are normally made) is something the company really needs. A more creative route is needed... Out of curiosity, what precisely is Pentax's volume and profitability on those lines?

01-01-2014, 09:39 PM	#85
jatrax Site Supporter Join Date: May 2010 Location: Washington Cascades Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,991	Originally posted by monochrome Out of curiosity, what precisely is Pentax's volume and profitability on those lines? Was wondering the same thing. Would love to see those reports and really see what's happening.

01-01-2014, 09:50 PM	#86
lesmore49 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Western Canada Posts: 12,342	Originally posted by enoxatnep First, in my original post I was referring to flyers for local retailers: Best Buy, Future Shop, Vistek, etc. I would never bu any camera at a big box store. Limited supply of equipment, generally staff are unfamiliar with camera equipment that is sold....my experience anyways. I didn't browse for online deals, and my observations were based only what I was seeing in these flyers and as I walked about these local retailers. You need to go to camera specialists...like London Drugs, Don's....don't think Henry's is in Alberta yet. I'm in Wpg. There are three Henry's, three Don's, one London Drugs...all have Pentax equipment. Since 2007 I've bought three DSLR bodies....and nine Pentax lens. Most was in stock...or could be brought in within a couple of days , a week or a max of two weeks. Also, I was talking about killer deals; I'm wondering how much $150 off that Pentax lens was percentage-wise? For some for the Canikon lenses I saw, they were hundreds of dollars cheaper and I would argue quite a good discount percentage-wise. That to me defines a "killer" deal, not just a "good" or "nice" one. I've got some killer deals. I'm pretty good at working online and getting local stores to match prices...or the deals have been there....in the stores. Deals are there...in Canada...but you need to go to specialist stores.

01-01-2014, 11:17 PM	#88
kadajawi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 2,799	Originally posted by enoxatnep Well, this seems to be turning into yet another full-frame discussion, but since I'm the OP I guess I'll chime in for a moment. I'm not a fan of FF currently for the sole reason that, when I pick up a FF Canon or Nikon, it's simply too big and heavy for my tastes, and I definitely don't consider myself a wimp. The only way I'd consider a FF Pentax is if they could make it not much larger and heavier than my K-5. May sound impossible, but that's what certain Apple engineers said to Steve Jobs about creating something as small as an iPod or thin as an iMac ... before they were fired. Same here. If you drop the mirror it can easily be done (see the Sony A7), not sure I'd want to loose it though. A bigger mirror/viewfinder is biggest draw towards FF for me, if you're using an electronic viewfinder anyway the size of the sensor doesn't matter. However there are people who want it. Heck, Pentax could just announce a FF camera, price it a bit out of reach, ... make sure no one gets it. Or buy a 5D, wrap it an a casing that says Pentax and has a Pentax mount and call it a day. No one needs to buy the thing. The mere existence is what's needed. Perhaps they could indeed develop such a product, even if it is me too and brings nothing new to the table, a stretched out K-3 perhaps, and do small production runs if someone actually buys it. Cause I doubt that many of those who complain they need FF will actually buy one when it's there.

01-02-2014, 09:59 AM	#89
enoxatnep Closed Account Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: The edge of nowhere, Alberta, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 467 Original Poster	Originally posted by lesmore49 I've got some killer deals. I'm pretty good at working online and getting local stores to match prices...or the deals have been there....in the stores. Deals are there...in Canada...but you need to go to specialist stores. Just to clarify, in my original post I wasn't shopping, only observing what was available in person and not online. I was merely commenting on what I saw non-Pentax wise as I browsed malls/stores leading up to Christmas. For the record, the only brick-and-mortar retailers I've ever bought my equipment from are all in Alberta (haven't needed to buy online, quite frankly) and they're not big-box: The Camera Store, McBain's, Saneal, Vistek (only when desperate!). And yes, I get my deals that way as well by looking online and getting price matches; McBain's is particularly good with doing that.

01-02-2014, 10:51 AM	#90
ScooterMaxi Jim Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Minnesota Posts: 1,520	Originally posted by ScooterMaxi Jim Develop a new lens line? That's interesting - because Pentax volume on the Q line, DA lenses, legacy FA, and 645 is so bountiful that another line of lenses (where profits are normally made) is something the company really needs. A more creative route is needed... Monochrome: Out of curiosity, what precisely is Pentax's volume and profitability on those lines? The volume is so high and profits soaring so much that before you know it, the other brands will be hard pressed to decide whether they should be offering only four discrete mount lines, or perhaps a fifth would be advisable.