Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Hong Kong |
Having seen the ultra success of the ASUS Eee PC (or called the EPC), this let me think about smart marketing decision is always the key way to success for a company.
Even for a weaker company like Pentax, which is actually always lagging behind in the competition, should and could think more about how to determine and create a new marketing segment by making new innovative product which is not present in the current market. The key element to success here is simply product idea but not technology advantages.
So, let's look at the EPC again, it does have smart marketing idea, slogan and promotion by ASUS. It it told that it is Easy to Learn, Easy to Work and Easy to Play (which the 3 Es represent and what its name is formed) but actually it is also very easy to carry with the clear fact that it is very portable and most importantly it is sold very cheap.
The ultra portability and the lowest price tag plus its high practicality for suiting for quite a number of basic daily applications including multi-media ones such as common compressed format movie playback and photo viewing, etc. Despite that the technical specifications of the EPC is not particularly strong, its bundle of advantages have almost overcome all its shortcomings and the lack of high performance by today's standards for sub-notes. It has more innovative unique feature, too, i.e., its static flash memory "hard-drive" which has the advantage of fast read/write speed and lowest possible power consumption to save battery juice and extend operation time.
Well, let's look at the past "recent" successful products of Pentax then. First, we can look at the K10D. The K10D is taking the approach of the more is better in which Pentax gave us many features in a package and on paper we could get a lot in a moderately priced body. However, I don't buy the idea of this as I never think that the K10D is a camera that has the real performance inside, when it is compared the nearly priced products in the competition of the same period. IMHO I must say it is just a re-packaged *ist D which has nearly the same old performance and technologies inside, e.g., the AF and metering parts. In 2003, such low performance and inaccuracy could still be tolerated to a certain extent, but in 2007 I think Pentax should really do much more if they really wished to market the K10D as a mid-level product as it was promoted and priced.
However, I don't think the K10D is a true success for Pentax actually, despite it suddenly gained attentions and some more sales. It is just because quite a lot of the attracted buyers / new users did not find it to be satisfactory as reported quite widely for its sub-par field performance and reliability, nor, there is anything in the Pentax land for those unsatisfied buyers to upgrade. So, Pentax simply could not retain those new customers and the new user base afterall, as those people switched and went away. The worst effect is that it left a really bad impression to them (and other non-users as well, for what it was told by those users) after they switched.
So, let's look back to the earlier previous Pentax successful model then. I think it is the MZ-5 in 1995, which was a true success IMO. The MZ-5 actually had saved Pentax from being dismissed from the SLR market in the mid-90s after the prolonged market loss since the SF series to the Z-series of Pentax SLRs from late 80s to mid-90s. I think the MZ-5 shares very much the successful elements of the EPC. It is very simple to use, not expensive to buy and has all the most basic functions and features but not yet too outdated. It is very clear that the MZ-5 has none of the leading edge technologies which the market leaders had, nor it could compete with any of the Canon and Nikon mid-range counterparts in its era as long as highest system performance aspects were concerned. But why so many people still choose about the MZ-5, including those new comers? .. which eventually suddenly saved the sales of Pentax SLRs and lenses. Just think about it.. It should be noted that the MZ legend lived for many years, until the *ist D came.
If we are to look at another very old truly successful story of Pentax SLR body, it should then be the K-1000 film SLR, I must say. It is of crude specs but it did sell well and for years - nearly two decades! Again, it is just because it is simple and basic *and* sold at a low price. For decades, the K-1000 has been a very good camera for beginners who had limited budgets on *both* body and lenses. The K-1000 can use any of the damn cheap but widely available old original Pentax and 3rd party K-mount lenses in huge number. Owing to its great simplicity, the K-1000 is also ideal for those who like to learn the basics of photography and exposure / metering control (just because it has nothing automatic and the users needed to do all by themselves). Finally, the K-1000 does have a rigid construction and is mechanically very reliable despite its low cost. It does even work and can take pictures without any battery installed.
After all the talks above, I think NOW it's time for Pentax to think about and introduce a K1000D in order to help themselves in getting back some market shares and to get a new beginner customer/user base which can help the company to survive/grow, too. In fact, I bet the K200D and the K20D in fact won't help Pentax much, as both offers are not attractive enough as they are easily replaced by Canon's and Nikon's similar or better offers near the same price that most of the new buyers will choose. Even assuming that the new Pentax products are the same in performance and price, why people would choose a small name instead of the big names (of the big boys)? As for the old K100D and K10D users, I really can't think out a reason why the existing users have any good reason and strong initiatives to "upgrade" to a K200D or K20D respectively.
I think Pentax has been running and heading a wrong way for years since the digital era for their DSLRs. I can bet they could never compete with Canon and Nikon etc. for keeping up the latest technologies in R&D nor they have comparable R&D budget nor they have the same production capabilities as other big boys. So, what they needed to do is to re-introduce a basic, simple and cheap DSLR which is highly preferable to be a small, compact and lightweight one which can be easily carried everywhere (like the EPC). Again, this camera must be very cheap (than ever) and this would attract many beginners who like to try and learn DSLR photography. To make it cheap, it must be very simple in features and specs. And, only to have simple features and specs, the cost of the new DSLR can be lower significantly - just a chicken and egg problem afterall. Of course, to trim down the unnecessary features is the proper way to cut cost, but not to scarify reliability and accuracy.
Nevertheless, even it is made basic, small and cheap, it must have some unique feature(s). I think Pentax had discarded a very valuable thing of theirs since the *ist D, it is the old K lens user and owner base, since they decided to cripple the new body K-mount forever (it is true up till now, at least). By summarising all the above criteria, I think a K1000D has an outlined specs below should sell very well and can attract many new comers:-
1. Weight less than 500g, preferably close to 400g. Size should be smallest or at least it should not be larger than a D60 and a 450D;
2. Keep the full K-mount specifications and compatibility and let the user to use the aperture ring of the K lenses to meter and expose too. I believe that it will be more accurate than the current Pentax digital lens design for the exposure control - the mechanical f-stop positions are individually calibrated, mechanically, for each aperture ring when each K-mount lens was designed whereas the body driven digital lenses' automatic aperture mechanical coupling is just totally outdated and it could just introduce more exposure inaccuracy and errors;
3. Keep only Spot and Centre-weighted average metering to save cost and make the camera simpler. The current 16-segment multi-pattern metering is not needed for those who really want to learn the basics nor it is really much useful owing to its low IQ, poor reliability and low consistency;
4. Keep only the AI predictive Single AF mode which is the only AF mode of the MZ-5 (no Pentax DSLR has been told to have any predictive AF capability now - I just puzzle why). I think only one single crossed AF sensor in the middle is more than enough for such a camera. The crossed sensor is preferably to make with higher pixel density, calibrated more precisely but in a smaller area in the finder for pinpointing focusing so that the highest possible AF accuracy and reliability can be attained. I also suggest that Pentax could make a f/5.6 sensor for the horizontal line and a f/2.8 sensor for the vertical line so as to further enhance the AF accuracy. Furthermore, by concentrating in building only the central sensor, the AF system should be re-built to have better overall responsiveness and better sensitivity in low light;
5. To re-build a focusing screen with more visible matte texture, so as to facilitate better Manual Focusing. Also, the plain very old Minolta/Pentax/Nikon focus indication system should be added to indicate front or back focus - well, just a pair of triangles indication in the finder (to indicate the focusing ring turning directions) is required -> nearly no additional cost to re-introduce but a very useful and unique feature nowadays as all camera makers followed what Canon did with their EOS to delete such useful focus indication;
6. It should support both the old Pentax TTL Auto and newer P-TTL flash guns for the unique compatibility again, so as to attract more old users (or even new ones who just want to get used gear cheap and easily). The K1000D can remove the built-in flash in order to further minimise its size and save weight (and manufacturing cost as well - but not to cut the TTL sensor to save the cost but scarify much compatibility - it is not that expensive to include such a TTL flash sensor afterall);
7. Of course the megapixel should be at least 10MP by today minimum standard. The K10D Sony CCD sensor, which is damn cheap right now, can be used;
8. Only P, A, S and M modes are needed;
9. No other bells and whistles are needed then and of course no Live View. I think even different picture modes/styles are not needed, as these could be included in the RAW convertor instead. I think the "Natural" mode is what most users need if the best colour accuracy is desired;
10. Aggressively priced under (US)$400 for such a greatly simplified design.
Having said that such a K1000D may help Pentax, Pentax should still try to make a true flagship later on which it has the real performance for major camera performance aspects. This would let Pentax to upkeep their outdated technologies in line with the latest in the competition. This flagship is preferably to be a 135 Full Frame DSLR, too, which is just the current trend for flagship DSLRs (at least Canon, Nikon and Sony have been or are now doing the same). The flagship serves as a symbol for marketing as well as practically an ultimate upgrade destination for the current Pentax DSLR users - but then this flagship can be made at a later stage after the success of such a K1000D (if it can be, but I do believe it can) and gaining of a considerably number of new users whom probably are mostly students, beginners as well as those very old Pentax users who just want to have ultimate simplicity and portability (and full compatibility as well). By then, Pentax would have more money and bucks to put back for doing better R&D jobs. All in all, I don't think Pentax is really wise to drop the compatibility and support for many of their older excellent lenses and flashes, which those compatibilities are just the true valuable asset of Pentax and compatibility is actually the true product feature differentiator for Pentax, especially for the full and true K-mount support! (40 millions of EOS lenses have now been produced since 1987, as Canon announced. How many Pentax AF lenses have been made up till now (since 1987 also)? If not all the K-mount lenses are counted, how could Pentax compete?)
P.S. This is a reprinted version of my latest article in my blog, some originally embedded URLs may be missing.
|
Originally posted by Mike Cash 
Similar Threads 
