[Mark Ransom]

But you have to have 4k video. Video is an occasional need for me , and Pentax video has always done the job.I have no idea what you guys are talking about when you say Pentax doesn't do video. It does do video. You're defining some kind of articial line in the sand, where you don't need pro video, but Pentax video isn't good enough. Talk about nit picking.

And the above video is really good. You have 8k pixels on your 4 k monitor, but you only have 6k cones in your eye. And most people still prefer 1080P for video. Who are these 4 k video freaks? The utility of 4 k TVs is their ability to upscale smaller formats for viewing from further away.

When you see someone say, they need 4k video, well they are basically as far as anyone can tell are saying they want it, just because it's there. Unless they are like me and using it so they can walk up to a 55 inch diagonal image and look at it at 72 dpi, they aren't even using it.

I'm actually with you there, I think 4K is overkill. What I'd really find useful in Pentax video is continuous AF and IBIS. The IBIS used to be available but was removed, it was promised in a firmware update but never materialized.

[Mark Ransom]

21 pages and I can't believe nobody mentioned this.

Pentax needs to find a way to convince 3rd part lens makers to continue making lenses for its system. Sigma has all but stopped making any new lenses for Pentax. the 50-100 1.8 Art would be great on the system with body SR making it a much more versatile lens than on a Canon or Nikon, but alas after talking with a Sigma rep that will never come to fruition. And when was the last Tamron lens for Pentax made? (yes, I know some of the newer lenses are Tamron designs. not what I meant)


I don't think a camera maker will ever make a master of all camera; the A7III comes really close, but there are some things it does not do well.
I think the question that should be asked is, what features can Ricoh incorporate/needs to incorporate that will make Pentax a viable choice in the consumer market without taking away the soul of Pentax cameras? Pentax cameras has some great advantages over other cameras at the same price point (and sometimes beyond). It still needs a healthy ecosystem.


Pentax as a brand is in danger if for every 2 people that leaves only 1 comes in, and we're already seeing the side effects of that.
Oh, and for the "I love my manual K lenses" crowd? Ever tried it on an A7 series with a Fotodiox Pro Pronto AF adapter?

The only way Pentax can convince third party lens makers to make K-mount is to sell more cameras. Chicken, meet egg.

[keos]

The only way Pentax can convince third party lens makers to make K-mount is to sell more cameras. Chicken, meet egg.

that was my point.
forget about Pentax if/when catch up to Nikon (or Canon or Sony) for feature x, y, and z.
it should be about what does Ricoh need to do to get more consumers into the Pentax system. otherwise it will be a dying brand.

[normhead]

that was my point.
forget about Pentax if/when catch up to Nikon (or Canon or Sony) for feature x, y, and z.
it should be about what does Ricoh need to do to get more consumers into the Pentax system. otherwise it will be a dying brand.

Everyone keeps doing this. Not catching up to Canon, Sony and Nikon makes Pentax a dying brand.
What evidence is there to support the notion that Pentax can't run a sustainable camera company at current sales levels, without catching up to Nikon, Sony, Or Canon?

People should be tied to a stake and whipped every time they blurt out this unsupported by any known evidence assumption.

Maybe , looking at the customers who buy Sigma, and Tamron lenses, just maybe, Pentax doesn't want those customers. Maybe what it would cost to attract them wouldn't pay for itself. I do own a few myself, but every one has been replaced for the most part by Pentax glass.

Pentax doesn't want you to buy the Tamron 90 macro. They want you to buy the DFA 100 macro. For obvious reasons. I

[keos]

Everyone keeps doing this. Not catching up to Canon, Sony and Nikon makes Pentax a dying brand.
What evidence is there to support the notion that Pentax can't run a sustainable camera company at current sales levels, without catching up to Nikon, Sony, Or Canon?

People should be tied to a stake and whipped every time they blurt out this unsupported by any known evidence assumption.

Right, because Pentax's continued decline in ILC marketshare is not proof enough?
But anyway you either misread my comment or you meant to quote someone else. I didn't say Pentax needs to catch up to Canon, Sony, or Nikon.
I'm saying Ricoh needs to do something to drive more marketshare; and if that's catching up to those 3 than so be it, and if they can do it by doing something else then so be it.

Maybe , looking at the customers who buy Sigma, and Tamron lenses, just maybe, Pentax doesn't want those customers. Maybe what it would cost to attract them wouldn't pay for itself. I do own a few myself, but every one has been replaced for the most part by Pentax glass.

Pentax doesn't want you to buy the Tamron 90 macro. They want you to buy the DFA 100 macro. For obvious reasons. I

that's dumb even by 1990s standards. I don't know how IBM's massiving failing in the 1990s PC market with that line of thinking can still exist in the 21st century. It's all about driving people to your system; if you can do it via first party then do it; if 3rd parties help give your competitors an advantage than you should get them on board too.

Canon doesn't want people to buy Tamron or Sigma either; but when people do it keeps them in the EF system that allows Canon to get you to buy their lenses down the road by having better lenses. Those who are just getting in may want to buy the cheaper Sigma than the $800 Canon, and upgrade later once they better understand the tradeoffs between the two.

[normhead]

I'm saying Ricoh needs to do something to drive more marketshare; and if that's catching up to those 3 than so be it, and if they can do it by doing something else then so be it.

And you misread me.

I'm saying Ricoh needs to do something to drive more marketshare;

Prove it. If you think the reason they need more market share is so 3rd party manufacturers can cut into their lens sales, that's really bad reason. The current Ricoh goal is profit margin, not market share. A directive form the CEO. They are looking to produce premium product, that can be leveraged into increased margins. market share is not a priority. Sound strategy n a shrinking market, where everyone is going to have to get more out of less. And I'm sure cutting out third party vendors is part of that.

It worked for Apple.

[keos]

And you misread me.



Prove it. If you think the reason they need more market share is so 3rd party manufacturers can cut into their lens sales, that's really bad reason. The current Ricoh goal is profit margin, not market share. A directive form the CEO. They are looking to produce premium product, that can be leveraged into increased margins. market share is not a priority. Sound strategy n a shrinking market, where everyone is going to have to get more out of less. And I'm sure cutting out third party vendors is part of that.

It worked for Apple.

no; the reason they need more marketshare is so they can sell more stuff, period. My argument is 3rd party vendors help do that. Why do you think e-mount took off? Hint, it wasn't because everyone jumped on the Sony bandwagon blindly.

Apple made the market. Of course they can charge a premium. As does Canon.

---

Last edited by MarkJerling; 09-11-2018 at 01:10 PM. Reason: Rude comments removed.

[Fogel70]

One mayor problem for Ricoh is the age of Pentax user base. Many users got their first Pentax in the 60s an 70s, and will not keep on being users forever.

I'm little under 50 years old and probably belong to the younger half of Pentax user base

[dubyam]

I don't have a dog in this fight beyond wanting Pentax to keep making great DSLRs for taking still pictures. I own a 1080 video camera which makes excellent video, and weighs less than my 18-135WR lens, and fits into every camera bag I use except the single DSLR holster bag (which doesn't even hold an extra lens, much less an extra camera. But I see a lot of entrenching in this discussion and perhaps not as much reason and logic as would be appropriate.

Consider that in the business world there are really only a couple of annual revenue strategies - either you want to drive overall revenue, or overall margin. In rare instances, these can be mutual goals, but ultimately, businesses fundamentally choose one or the other, rather than both. They do it consciously or unconsciously, but they choose. In considering market share, there are a few options, as well. You can chase overall market share, or you can chase share within a segment, or you can declare you are a premium item and share is irrelavent. Examples of all of these exist. In beer, Bud light has the highest market share. It's not premium beer, and it's not expensive beer. I suspect the margins on Bud Light are about what the margins on most standard beers are, so my guess is, Bud Light (along with Miller Lite, Budweiser, Coors Light, and others) are pursuing market share as a strategy. Contrast that with some of the real craft breweries, who may have fractions of a percent of market share (where Bud Light has over 15% share of beer sold in the US), but who are building a brand aimed at a specific market segment, rather than the general population. Examples of true premium products aren't easily identified in the beer market, but think about companies like Rolls Royce, Ferrari, or Weatherby Rifles, and you see brands who are not chasing share as much as they're chasing a premium market which pays premium pricing for items which may or may not do a job better than other less premium options, but which carry an air of prestige and exclusivity.

Now, with that said, it appears Ricoh is pursuing profit margin, apparently at the expense of market share. If they can position Pentax as a premium brand, with a boutique status (which isn't far from where they are now, delays in lens and APS-C flagship body release notwithstanding), they stand a good chance of remaining solvent. Market share is holding somewhat steady, hovering in the mid-4% range for the last few years, with two anomalies in share, coinciding with the release of the K-30/K-5ii/K-5iis in 2012 when share reached 7.5%, and coinciding with the release of the K-1 and K-70 in 2016, when share reached 6.7%. What that tells me is that in years when Pentax drops a couple of very strong new camera bodies, they gain share, and in years when they drop only one quality new body, they are weaker. If I'm in the corporate office at Ricoh, this is a trend I identify pretty quickly and begin to discuss as much as possible. I'm not suggesting two bodies a year is a necessary pace, or even one I'd want to sustain, but I'd start talking about 5 bodies over 36mo as a reasonable goal. With the K-1 introduction into the FF arena, it would be pretty feasible from a thought standpoint to produce a new body in APS-C and FF every 14-16mo (not including basic updates like the K-1ii). Right now, if the new APS-C flagship rolls out in early 2019, the pace is almost on track to accomplish 5 bodies in 36mo. The only fly in that ointment is the K-1ii, which isn't a fully new body, just a refining of the K-1. If (and if is an awfully big word here) Ricoh were to introduce a new FF late next year (and I have no idea if they're really considering that or working on it or what) with 7-8fps and a buffer big enough to hold a number of shots comparable to the K-3, with the next improvement in autofocus, I suspect they could command $2500 for it, and find a number of users who would jump at the chance to try Pentax for the first time, based on image quality alone.

Now, all of what I posted above is pure conjecture, as I have neither a backchannel to Ricoh nor a crystal ball. But it's certainly feasible for Ricoh to get a head of steam under this segment of their business by catching up on the lens roadmap and releasing a new flagship APS-C body, and maintain that momentum with releases of lenses and bodies at only a slightly faster pace than the last six or seven years. With higher margins will come the opportunity to invest in a bit of advertising, which would further build the momentum. Obviously, coulda-woulda-shoulda is worth what you just paid to read it, but it is possible for Pentax to maintain a 4-6% share and be profitable, without trying to really drive a lot of share growth, just as it's possible for them to drive profitability for a time and then leverage that to trek back to north of 7.5% share. Will they? I wish I knew. I hope they don't disappear, as I really like Pentax designs and features.

[Mark Ransom]

One mayor problem for Ricoh is the age of Pentax user base. Many users got their first Pentax in the 60s an 70s, and will not keep on being users forever.

I'm little under 50 years old and probably belong to the younger half of Pentax user base

Maybe they're waiting for us all to die off so we can take our expectations with us and they can start fresh?

[keos]

The difference between my post and yours, mine contain's actual references to current Ricoh marketing strategy.

Let's take your Apple analogy one step further. About 6 years ago, do you think Samsung had the ability to command prices they do today? The 4s launched at 649; the galaxy note launched at 520.
today the iphone x is 999; so is the note 9
the iphone 8/+ and the s9/+ are pretty much at price parity.

how do you command margins in general? either through higher prices or lower cost. let's say the hypothetical k3-iii is on par with the hypothetical 7d-iii but with similar level of compromises that exist between the current 7d-2 vs k3-2.

The 7d-iii will probably be a 1799 part.
let's say so will the k3-iii.

which do you think will sell better?

let's go even further; as a % of target market, how many do you think will upgrade to their respective system's models? I would say as a % you would get more staying within the EF system than in the K system in this scenario.

or how about a different scenario.
Let's say the 7d-iii is a 1799 part, and the K3-iii used much cheaper parts and is now a 1499 part. Which do you think will sell better? I would say again as a % the 7d-iii would do better.


optimizing margins is not a linear exercise. It's a curve based on how much you can price vs your cost vs the demand, and it not just as simple as saying we want to increase our margins so the only thing we will do is do the same thing but charge a higher price. Consumer markets and economics don't work like that, as has been proven over and over again in practice.

[Fogel70]

Maybe they're waiting for us all to die off so we can take our expectations with us and they can start fresh?

Or maybe they are hoping for a zombie apocalypse, so we can keep on using our cameras after we died.

[neokind]

no; the reason they need more marketshare is so they can sell more stuff, period. My argument is 3rd party vendors help do that. Why do you think e-mount took off? Hint, it wasn't because everyone jumped on the Sony bandwagon blindly.

Apple made the market. Of course they can charge a premium. As does Canon.

This guy does business. Thank you for commenting. Stagnancy is death in business. Slow or fast, the end is the same. Like it or not, businesses need to both maintain existing customers and gain new ones if they want to thrive.

[Rondec]

I'm actually with you there, I think 4K is overkill. What I'd really find useful in Pentax video is continuous AF and IBIS. The IBIS used to be available but was removed, it was promised in a firmware update but never materialized.

I think both of these will improve over time (not sure why Pentax didn't activate IBIS already with video with some warnings about noise or heating or whatever). The hard thing with SLRs and auto focus is that depth of field is a lot more narrow due to the wider apertures than on most camcorders. Film makers like this because it can let them have interesting artistic shots, but it means that focus is pretty difficult and as like as not, the camera will choose the wrong thing to focus on. That's why most pros use manual focus, even when using cameras that have decent auto focus with video. From Pentax's standpoint, they can continue to improve auto focus with video, but it isn't too bad with the K-1, it just doesn't work well with wide aperture lenses and is constantly trying to adjust focus. Having focus peaking with video would actually probably solve a lot of problems.

I do take clips of my kids doing things with my SLRs and the results are fine. Ergonomically though it isn't as comfortable to use for this purpose as a camcorder is.

[kooks]

Like it or not Ricoh can't only survive with the current user base for too long, they need more clients in order to deliver us more, isn't that what we want? better cameras, more lenses, more accesories, new features? well in order for us to have that they need $$$$ so they can invest, without $$$ it's impossible to have better cameras/features/lenses, and money should come from somewhere not just from the old ones, that after all, will eventually stop buying products. So all this Pentax is ok as it is perhaps is not as true as some think.