[Dan Rentea]

Which proves my very point. That’s traditional large brand product differentiation / barrier to entry thinking. Divide the category into so many sub-categories that no smaller company can gather enough sales in their single item to mount a threat (in the traditional retail channels with traditional products and tradtional marketing). Competing on Canisony terms is the error Olympus made and look what happened.

Cameras aren’t laundry detergent. Ricoh doesn’t need to compete with the large companies on large company terms. They don’t necessarily need to sell any of the options a few people repeatedly claim to want. What if Ricoh has concluded (for instance) they can’t make any money selling a low resolution (entry level or middle level) full frame camera? What if they’ve concluded that though they know how to do it, they can’t make money selling a FF MILC? We don’t know what they know. Asserting we do konw doesn’t make our opinion more valuable.

Again, the basic assumption that Ricoh’s business plan won’t work unless they play by Canisony product differentiation rules falsifies your arguments before you even start.

Why do you think that Ricoh is not competing with the others? As long as they release cameras with features like pixel shift and astrotracer in order to have something unique to apeal photographers, they are in competition. They don't generate enough sales to become a strong contender when comes to market share, but as long as they are in business, competition is inevitable. Even if Ricoh is releasing bodies only to keep their users happy, it's still called competition. It may be different than the one you think and talk about, but it's there. Olympus was in the mirrorless market before Canon and Nikon joined. I don't blame Canon, Sony or Nikon for Olympus failure. Their mount and their high prices for their bodies probably had more to do with their situation rather than Canon, Nikon or Sony, even if their cameras had also some impact in Oly situation. Panasonic is interesting to follow from a business point of view due to their choice to enter in the full frame mirrorless jungle.

---------- Post added 07-26-20 at 07:33 PM ----------

I regularly and consistently turn away potential customers who want me to sell them services I have chosen not to provide. Some of them don’t take my polite rejection very well. They think their business is important enough that I should sell what they want just because the want it.

I do what I do, not what I don’t. Doing what I don’t would increase my Revenue but reduce my Return, given all the new costs I would incur to start doing what I don’t. It would also likely reduce the performance to customers I already have by diverting my attention from my existing services.

Competing is a choice, not a requirement..

I don't think that turning down customers or potential customers has to do with business competition. I rather see it as a business decision and position in market. Almost to every place I go there is a sign which say something like "we reserve the rights for selecting our clients". That's normal and common for various reasons. Or, you talk about something else and my english doesn't capture subtilities.

[monochrome]

I don't think that turning down customers or potential customers has to do with business competition. I rather see it as a business decision and position in market. Almost to every place I go there is a sign which say something like "we reserve the rights for selecting our clients". That's normal and common for various reasons. Or, you talk about something else and my english doesn't capture subtilities.

So you contradict yourself again. Ricoh actively selects its customers by the product choices it makes and refuses to make. Those are choices. They aren’t required to offer products because you say people ask them to.

I said compete on Canisony terms, which you neglected to address. You need to step back and think about what Pentax is doing, You can’t get outside the traditional volume product development and marketing strategies of the entrenched makers. Your decision set is flawed by a systemic bias which you can’t even see.

I think Sony has less than 2 years before Daniel Loeb foces Sony to sell Imaging to Toshiba, and Ricoh’s Pentax brand will aurprise everyone by how well they do. K-new has potential to be the next K10D - Grand Prix Camera of the Year.

[gatorguy]

A single camera to do everything well doesn't exist. Yes, each of us try to buy the camera that works best for us based on what we shoot. And yes, Ricoh at this point in my opinion (and as I said from begining of this thread) does the right thing to stick with DSLRs...

Ok, so your answer would be that yes the K1 serves a lot of needs and still works very well as one of the three Pentax camera choices you think are essential for them to be a viable choice for new and casual shooters, prosumers, and certain professionals. Works well at higher ISO's and has excellent dynamic range, both exceeding many other highly rated full-frame DSLR's from other companies. The weak area might be the AF where it's middling. Accurate but not as fast as some.

As you said no camera is the perfect choice in all instances.

And you also agree that Pentax is making the wise choice to concentrate on DSLR's which are still the preference for a wide range of photographers of all skill levels while the other players are mimicking each other, all distracted by each other and mirrorless development. There's a DSLR door left standing open, Pentax just needs to step on through while they're all looking elsewhere. Smart.

Thanks Dan for clarifying.

[Dan Rentea]

So you contradict yourself again. Ricoh actively selects its customers by the product choices it makes and refuses to make. Those are choices. They aren’t required to offer products because you say people ask them to.

I said compete on Canisony terms, which you neglected to address. You need to step back and think about what Pentax is doing, You can’t get outside the traditional volume product development and marketing strategies of the entrenched makers. Your decision set is flawed by a systemic bias which you can’t even see.

I think Sony has less than 2 years before Daniel Loeb foces Sony to sell Imaging to Toshiba, and Ricoh’s Pentax brand will aurprise everyone by how well they do. K-new has potential to be the next K10D - Grand Prix Camera of the Year.

You are trying to tell me that Ricoh doesn't care what Canon, Sony, Nikon, etc. do? Do you think that they don't keep an eye on other manufacturers so that they can offer similar products? Do you think that Ricoh isn't interested in numbers when comes to market share and cameras sold? They are, just not at a level to be relevant among the big boys from the market. They are just following the numbers. As long as the numbers are constant in terms of sales, they don't have to take bold actions. If tomorow they loose 20% of the market to Sony, Canon, Nikon, Panasonic, what do you think they will do? They will ignore the fact that competition stolen 20% or they will try to recover that procent or at least to mantain what's left?

You're being naive if you think that Ricoh isn't in competition with the others just because it doesn't have the numbers and similar market share. Read every business book or talk to every entrepreneur and you will see that once there are 2 companies offering similar products, then there is competition. You can refuse potential clients as you said (everybody does that, from restaurants to vloggers to camera manufacturers), but this doesn't change the fact that the other companies (competition) will not hunt your customers trying to steal them from you. Once they succeed, if you don't do anything you're out of business. Why do you think big companies constantly buy small companies which have the potential to steal their clients and their market share? Even when (if) Ricoh will remain the only DSLR manufacturer, there will still be competition between them and the other camera companies. They will compete with OVF as one of the selling points, as they did with IBIS for a long time and now every system has it implemented in mirrorless to attract new users, as they did with pixel shift and competition implemented this feature in mirrorless, etc.



---------- Post added 07-26-20 at 10:26 PM ----------

Ok, so your answer would be that yes the K1 serves a lot of needs and still works very well as one of the three Pentax camera choices you think are essential for them to be a viable choice for prosumers and certain professionals. Works well at higher ISO's and has excellent dynamic range, both exceeding many other highly rated full-frame DSLR's from other companies. The weak area might be the AF where it's middling. Accurate but not as fast as some.

As you said no camera is the perfect choice in all instances.

And you also agree that Pentax is making the wise choice to concentrate on DSLR's which are still the preference for a wide range of photographers of all skill levels while the other players are mimicking each other, all distracted by each other and mirrorless development. There's a DSLR door left standing open, Pentax just needs to step on through while they're all looking elsewhere. Smart.

From comment one I said that there will always be a market for DSLR as there still is for film cameras. And I said all over the forum that Pentax has great cameras, but for certain jobs there are more oriented cameras, if people are willing to invest money. And I also said that I see big drops in prices for new mirrorless cameras with Z5 as the last example which offers quite a lot of features for an entry level camera. This may have an impact in the overall market because D610 was released at 2000$ while Z5 is listed at 1400$. This can or can't be a problem for Ricoh. Again, time will tell because none of us has direct experience working in Ricoh board.

The problem is that some people move somehow the discussion making it look like Pentax is under attack by people who shoot with other systems. I shoot with K3 and K1 and with some lenses probably more than trully Pentaxians because I have a few friends who shoot with Pentax and I go out a lot (or at least I used to before the pandemic). I can't ignore when someone tells me "Pentax af is great, you're just a Canon fanboy" and in another topic the first thing he say is that he hopes at big improvements in terms of af from the next Pentax camera because now the af is so so.

---

Last edited by Dan Rentea; 07-26-2020 at 04:18 PM.

[gatorguy]

You are trying to tell me that Ricoh doesn't care what Canon, Sony, Nikon, etc. do? Do you think that they don't keep an eye on other manufacturers so that they can offer similar products? Do you think that Ricoh isn't interested in numbers when comes to market share and cameras sold? They are, just not at a level to be relevant among the big boys from the market. They are just following the numbers. As long as the numbers are constant in terms of sales, they don't have to take bold actions. If tomorow they loose 20% of the market to Sony, Canon, Nikon, Panasonic, what do you think they will do? They will ignore the fact that competition stolen 20% or they will try to recover that procent or at least to mantain what's left?

You're being naive if you think that Ricoh isn't in competition with the others just because it doesn't have the numbers and similar market share. Read every business book or talk to every entrepreneur and you will see that once there are 2 companies offering similar products, then there is competition. You can refuse potential clients as you said (everybody does that, from restaurants to vloggers to camera manufacturers), but this doesn't change the fact that the other companies (competition) will not hunt your customers trying to steal them from you. Once they succeed, if you don't do anything you're out of business. Why do you think big companies constantly buy small companies which have the potential to steal their clients and their market share? Even when (if) Ricoh will remain the only DSLR manufacturer, there will still be competition between them and the other camera companies. They will compete with OVF as one of the selling points, as they did with IBIS for a long time and now every system has it implemented in mirrorless to attract new users, as they did with pixel shift and competition implemented this feature in mirrorless, etc.



---------- Post added 07-26-20 at 10:26 PM ----------



From comment one I said that there will always be a market for DSLR as there still is for film cameras. And I said all over the forum that Pentax has great cameras, but for certain jobs there are more oriented cameras, if people are willing to invest money. And I also said that I see big drops in prices for new mirrorless cameras with Z5 as the last example which offers quite a lot of features for an entry level camera. This may have an impact in the overall market because D610 was released at 2000$ while Z5 is listed at 1400$. This can or can't be a problem for Ricoh. Again, time will tell because none of us has direct experience working in Ricoh board.

The problem is that some people move somehow the discussion making it look like Pentax is under attack by people who shoot with other systems. I shoot with K3 and K1 and with some lenses probably more than trully Pentaxians because I have a few friends who shoot with Pentax and I go out a lot (or at least I used to before the pandemic). I can't ignore when someone tells me "Pentax af is great, you're just a Canon fanboy" and in another topic the first thing he say is that he hopes at big improvements in terms of af from the next Pentax camera.

I don't think I[ve implied you were a "fanboy", a somewhat derogatory term. No one here should be resorting to that.

My intent for the questions was determining exactly what your opinion of the Pentax re-dedication to SLR's was. It seemed for a bit as tho you were hedging with things like "it's the right choice.... since they can't afford to develop mirrorless". That's leaves some readers with the perception you're saying Pentax should be doing mirrorless just like every other camera company but since they can't..."

Based on what you're saying now the "can't afford" part isn't all that relevant to whether it's a wise market decision. It's a wise choice in any event, correct? There's already plenty of hands playing one-upsmanship. Let Pentax concentrate on the market the others are choosing to ignore at the moment, and the one where they all became successful.

So you are in general agreement with the better part of the other commenters. This is exactly what Pentax should be doing, whether or not they can afford to do otherwise.

I hope they're making the right bet and IMO they are.

[Dan Rentea]

I don't think I[ve implied you were a "fanboy", a somewhat derogatory term. No one here should be resorting to that.

Sorry for misunderstanding. I wasn't talking about you at all. I have normal conversations until 2-4 regular "fans" of mine come strong to point out that I use Canon gear as my main system so that they can spice a little the topics. Now it seems that they adopted the same strategy to everything I say (photography or not related) and they know without having a clue if a business (stock photography in this particular case) can work or not and if some can't, the rest who can are exceptions. Fortunately, only one was rude enough so that I had to block him.

My intent for the questions was determining exactly what your opinion of the Pentax re-dedication to SLR's was.
It seemed for a bit as tho you were hedging with things like "it's the right choice.... since they can't afford to develop mirrorless". That's leaves some readers with the perception you're saying Pentax should be doing mirrorless just like every other camera company but since they can't..."

My opinion regarding Pentax cameras hasn't change in the last couple of years. They have great bodies that are among the best when comes to certain areas of photography. They have initiative when comes to adding new features to their cameras. They also make some compromises which makes investing (reinvesting in my case) in Pentax a tough decision for a lot of people, myself included.

Would I like to see Ricoh developing mirrorless cameras? For sure. Do they afford to do it in the current context with Canon, Nikon, Sony and Panasonic fighting for a piece of the new pie and with the pandemic situation on top? In my opinion it's safer and wiser to wait and see if their DSLR business remains steady so that they can keep their user base as before. They were pushed by the market and by their user base to develop a full frame despite that lots of people said it's too late to join the full frame battle. That's the effect of competition, even if it's indirect. So, it's not impossible to see Ricoh joining the mirrorless market.

Based on what you're saying now the "can't afford" part isn't all that relevant to whether it's a wise market decision. It's a wise choice in any event, correct? There's already plenty of hands playing one-upsmanship. Let Pentax concentrate on the market the others are choosing to ignore at the moment, and the one where they all became successful.

The market dictates every single time. If the market, which includes also Ricoh and Pentax user base, dictates that DSLRs are dead by buying less and less DSLRs, then you either join the market demands or you go out of business. That's why from a business perspective it will be interesting to see how Pentax will approach the 2 things that seems to have changed lately:

1. competition prices and I gave the example of Z5 at 1400$ vs. D610 at 2000$ when they both launched. At 2000$ Pentax offered a better feature oriented camera than D610, 6D or than D750 which was even more expensive (around 2500$). Those prices seems to be history if we look at Z5 which for 1000$ less it offers the features of the D750/D780. This may also have to do with the costs of creating a mirrorless, which as I understood are less than the cost of building a DSLR

2. the promotion of mirrorless on every single channel which increased once Nikon and Canon joined this market. With R5 and R6 Canon adopted a strong position that inevitably will have an impact also among Pentaxians. Z5 also makes some Pentaxians turn their attention to mirrorless, as we can see from internet discussions...

I hope they're making the right bet and IMO they are.

Today, given the global situation, I agree. I would also start to play more with mirrorless in order to get familiar with EVFs, just in case Ricoh decides it's time to enter the mirrorless market or in case they sell the image department to a company that will move the business to the mirrorless. We have no clue here as we're not in Ricoh management board and we're not responsible either for others decision when comes to vote with their wallet. Without a direct experience of none of us, we just speculate, as opposite to the example of stock photography where someone who hasn't done stock not a single day tries to convince someone who does stock with some success that it can't become a small business for others. My business approach when I decide to start something is not influenced by people who haven't succeeded but teach others how to fail by offering tips and tricks on their blogs.

[gatorguy]

Well Dan, we both know there will always be a market for DSLR's, and it's not hard to believe it will still be a substantial portion going forward. IMO Pentax ending up as a leader in that market and not a hanger-on in mirrorless is a far better place to be.

So rgw question you would answer is in a declining market is it better to use your resources to do two things OK or one thing really great? You're a businessman, and it seems an obvious answer to me, another businessman. I suspect you haven't actually thought it thru, and just wishing for another mirrorless player. TBH I'm a little surprised you think Pentax could do both well (assuming the resources are available and perhaps they are) and find more success than concentrating on one significant segment the others are ignoring at the moment.

As far as me "playing with mirrorless" I have. The camera's (only Sony so far) are not as pleasant to hold, no need to discuss the interface and menus of course, and the only truly critical part: Images are no better than what I get from my DSLR's....

And yes a group of us very regularly compare images taken at the same events or of the same subjects and models so they really are apples for apples. I don't know what my reason moving to mirrorless would be which makes me one of those who will always be a DSLR buyer as long as there's an innovative and quality camera company with the lenses I need. At the moment Pentax serves me well in that regard, and mirrorless for me is simply not a consideration. There's no need.

With all that said perhaps one at your skill level can't regularly get as compelling images from a DSLR as you've discovered you can capture from a mirrorless, and you have the funds to maintain multiple systems so no need to choose one or the other. You plainly have different wants, and likes that no single camera manufacturer can provide. For you and for me it's not just about selling the cheapest cameras so I dont' expect Pentax to be a loss leader. Be more like Leica and less like Nikon, right. Let one of the mirrorless guys take that cheap spot and see if "make it up in volume" works when the customer base is shrinking.

Choices are good.

---

Last edited by gatorguy; 07-27-2020 at 05:10 AM.

[Kunzite]

So you contradict yourself again. Ricoh actively selects its customers by the product choices it makes and refuses to make. Those are choices. They aren’t required to offer products because you say people ask them to.

I said compete on Canisony terms, which you neglected to address. You need to step back and think about what Pentax is doing, You can’t get outside the traditional volume product development and marketing strategies of the entrenched makers. Your decision set is flawed by a systemic bias which you can’t even see.

I think Sony has less than 2 years before Daniel Loeb foces Sony to sell Imaging to Toshiba, and Ricoh’s Pentax brand will aurprise everyone by how well they do. K-new has potential to be the next K10D - Grand Prix Camera of the Year.

It is often difficult to understand Pentax, when you keep thinking about market share and aggressive marketing and "complete" product lines and so on - but never about how a small player can survive.

The Petapixel article gets it quite well. Those with the "Pentax must go mirrorless and compete like everyone else!" mantra don't. At all. (I'm speaking about you, fstoppers!)

About Sony... you know, I actually hope it will happen. IMO the way they're competing is harmful for the entire industry - it's not only them, of course, but they're leading by some margin.
A serious shake-up (don't want them gone, ofc) might settle things down a bit.

[gatorguy]

It is often difficult to understand Pentax, when you keep thinking about market share and aggressive marketing and "complete" product lines and so on - but never about how a small player can survive.

We're on the same page.

[Kunzite]

We're on the same page.

Of course we are.
Unfortunately, me and Dan are in different libraries, for this very reason.

[noelpolar]

I was involved with a business some time ago that "owned" a very mature niche market..... our product developement was well researched with respect to our customer needs/desires and the product developement we undertook was very targeted..... whilst focusing on profitability.... which off course meant we managed costs etc very closely as well..... not rocket science.... pretty well much what Pentax is doing. Off course, not everyone was satisfied.... but to stray to far meant all would be squandered. I think Pentax is doing the correct thing.... for now.

But.... and a big but..... who cares what I think!

I'm heading off on a two week trip tomorrow.... and have left half of my photo stuff at home.... so I have 2x what I need now anyhow.

[Arjay Bee]

"Following own path"; "not competing"; "niche customers"; "specific markets"; "specific user types" are all phrases that can be used in conjunction with several other brands - for example Leica. What is being discussed here is a marketing paradigm - Pentax/Ricoh are using a specialization paradigm that sells itself rather than a mass or volume paradigm using concepts such as "brand share", "swamping", "competition" and offering "brand change inducements". The recent release of the Ricoh videos supports this paradigm. The first video outlines the vision and describes the mission statement of the products it produces - if these goals dont match any of those of any one customer's usage then that individual should just just move on. Ricoh arent interested in meeting such a user's particular needs.
Using an ecological metaphor - all birds are hunting for food and so can be said to be in competition but when analysed the different species have separate but overlapping ranges of food types and locations. A camera company in a mature market can replicate this specialization and remain flourishing. It is no longer about being the biggest, or the best at any one thing but the best adapted to its particular market (ecological) niche. Bringing out multiple models is not a sustainable survival mode in this metaphor as then the camera models (birds) are competing with themselves. Instead, each new generation is released just as the previous generation starts to age and deteriorate.
For most people in the current mature camera market the need to upgrade isnt there and so people hold on to current cameras until a replacement, not necessarily an upgrade, is necessary. Market survey data supports this slowdown in upgrade buying behaviour. At the anecdotal level, my K3 is 6 years old and is scratched up and the rubber finger grips are starting to come unstuck and so on - middle-aged lets say - the Knew is looking interesting but still too soon so KnewmkII will possibly be the time for replacement. (In an aside I am guessing it will be called the K2D)
I like the way Pentax is doing its own thing - a mature product, in a mature market with a knowledgable user base. To switch metaphors think of specialist vehicle makers like Kubota or Manitou etc. They dont sell in the vehicle market like Ford or Toyota but they will continue to sell specialist vehicles while there is a need for their product. in their chosen niche. Customers will always choose the tool with the appropriate features for the job.

[clackers]

we just speculate, as opposite to the example of stock photography where someone who hasn't done stock not a single day tries to convince someone who does stock with some success that it can't become a small business for others.

Are you *still* signing people up for stock photography with the enthusiasm of a New York ponzi scheme seller, when you've been warned - stick to the topic? That is, the argument that Pentax is doing exactly the right thing with its cameras as Canon profits tumble with theirs - R as well as EF mount.

I even invited you to start a thread elsewhere on this alternative pet topic nobody here either asked for or showed interest in, even after your multiple posts about it, Dan. And you ignored that opportunity. Thumbs down from me, I'm afraid!

[Dan Rentea]

Are you *still* signing people up for stock photography with the enthusiasm of a New York ponzi scheme seller, when you've been warned - stick to the topic? That is, the argument that Pentax is doing exactly the right thing with its cameras as Canon profits tumble with theirs - R as well as EF mount.

I even invited you to start a thread elsewhere on this alternative pet topic nobody here either asked for or showed interest in, even after your multiple posts about it, Dan. And you ignored that opportunity. Thumbs down from me, I'm afraid!

It wasn't about going back to stock above and you know it very well. I was pointing out the differences between theories regarding a business where we don't have any kind of informations given that none of us works in Ricoh's management board and a business where we can talk based on facts and experience.

For the first one, we just make assumptions based on what's happening in photography market, based on the moves of the other manufacturers and how they try to move the market to a new mount and so on. My assumptions can become reality as musch as your assumptions or every other colleague involved in this discussion. As for assumptions, people said that Pentax can be like Leica. Here is another assumption: Pentax can't afford to play like Leica because it's user base don't seem to be keen to pay 4000$ for an APS-C. Now you can come and tell me they can so that we can speculate as we did and as Petapixel did with their article. Because this is the main reason why articles like that are being written and published. They get lots of traffic and lots of comments.

For the second one we have people who are directly involved in the business and we have people who talk about this business from outside, not having a single clue about it. So, each time you jump at my neck, try to differentiate the 2 businesses we discuss about because we can fabulate as long and as much we can/want about the first one, at the end of the day it's still assumptions mixed with wishes. When comes to the second one, I have 100% more experience than you given the fact that I am involved in this business and you are not. It's like me comming to your office and tell you "you're not doing a good job" or "you can't do your job well" with me having as arguments some internet articles.

I'm not giving you a thumb down for a discussion that have no grounds or arguments behind, with the subject being what should Ricoh do next given how market has changed in the last 3 years. I can make the difference when comes to a speculation threads. I'm giving you a thumb down simply because you got involved in the other discussion with your knifes sharpen but without any kind of information about what you're going to attack.

---------- Post added 07-28-20 at 07:35 AM ----------

Choices are good.

That's what I said from day one. Choices are good. Canon and Nikon will take away some of my choices by dropping DSLRs and Ricoh can't supply my needs when comes to DSLRs, with just one body released at a time and with slow development of new lenses. OVF it's not enough as a reason for me personally to stay in DSLRs boat. Every one of us loose something in this process... So again, as a user I want as much choices as I can get, regarding the brand. From a business perspective, I already said that in my opinion and given the current times, Ricoh risks a lot by developing a mirrorless system now. 3 years ago it could have been the smarter decision. Maybe 3 years from now it will become available a new window for them and they will be developing a mirrorless or give us both options. As long as they stay in business, they offer us more choices. So again, from a user perspective I can't wait to see how the new Ricoh cameras will look like.

As for Ricoh prices, in my opinion it is (was) one of their stronger selling points compare to Nikon, Canon, Sony, Panasonic. A lot bigger than OVF vs. EVF... This is an advantage they may loose with Z5 that will push Sony, Panasonic, Canon and Nikon to take action. Again, it's an assumption based on Pentaxians comments that let us know they won't invest 3500$ in a D850 for example or 2500$ in a D750.

[Kunzite]

A few points:
- it's not true that we don't have any kind of information; we do have very little information though.
- assumptions are not all equally valid
- for example the assumption that "Pentax can be like Leica" implies APS-C cameras being priced at $4000 is suspect. But IMHO this was about Pentax staying as a DSLR maker even if the market moves towards the mirrorless.
- completely unrelated business areas are largely irrelevant.