Originally posted by Urkeldaedalus You talk about the K200D as if it was a great success for Pentax. The truth is it was a good camera, but it was also a sort of oddball tweener camera price wise that didn't sell very well -- not as well as the K20D above it or the K-m below it.
You are correct that the K-x probably will not be the darling of the camera review sites. The K-m wasn't really beloved by Dpreview either for that matter. But look at the buzz surrounding the K-x, quotes like this will start popping up:
"Pentax redefines specs for value for entry level cameras"
"Pentax has lowest priced DSLR with HD video and live view"
"Pentax dSLR takes video to a new low price"
(various other versions of how cheap this camera is)
The quotes that matter are those that call it "broken":
Pentax K-x Digital Camera - Hands-On Preview - The Imaging Resource!
Everything else you quote is Pentax ad copy, not independent preview.
Bad word, cheap. Even today.
Quote: This will be labeled to the consumer as a budget purchase,
If there is no K200D replacement, no, it will be given exactly the same market placement it has already received. Something in the middle.
it is common for reviewers and market analysts to reposition products where the market average demonstrates they should be, industry wording notwithstanding.
Quote: therefore they will be prepared to accept certain limitations in order to spend less money. Pentax could have added $175 as you say and competed well with the Tli and the D5000, but then not only would they have to sell more to make a profit, they'd no longer be able to claim that they have the cheapest HD video dSLR in its class. It would just be another camera in its range. How would they differentiate that to non Pentax users? Different color schemes? Weatherproofing?
OK. So basically you mean that Pentax should just do what Canikon does, except a little cheaper?
That goes to the heart of the debate, doesn't it? What does Pentax stand for? Why not buy more brand insurance with the big guys?
Pentax must make a more expensive model with modestly improved featureas (WR, better AF, HDMI out) or drop the K-7 substantially, to get the mid-range consumer. A $600 gap is market foolish.
Quote: I know you feel this strategy won't work, but let me give you a brief example why I think it might. I have a friend who is not into photography, but liked the photos I and my other photographer friends had taken, so she decided she wanted to get a dSLR. I tried to convince her to buy a refurbished $380 K200d from Best Buy, as I reasoned that this was a whole lot of camera for the money and she could match this with a decent lens for less than $600. A great deal, I thought.
No, this strategy will work, but only at the low end, not mid-range where there is a huge vacuum and a $600 price gap between models. There are enough initial poor comments and things missing to keep it out of the mid-range.
Very few companies in tech are profitable only at the low-end. They all need a strong middle. Where is the mid-range body? Where it the one that punches up to the D90 and down to the D5000?
Quote: She listened to my advice, thanked me, and then a week later went and bought a new Nikon D40.
Why? She said she wanted to buy a camera for less than $500. For $100 more she could have had a much better camera, but for her purposes that was too much to spend.
Right, You just made my point. She bought a big name brand because it offered comfort she could not get from Pentax without pricing AND specing in a way that blew the D40 out of the water.
I went the other way. Dumped my D40 and bought a K200D. Why? Look at the feature set for the price. BAck then, at that price point, Pentax had more features than the other guys. Now, big, big, big hole.
Quote: Camera consumers do read reviews, and they may be swayed by a lack of red confirmation points. But those same reviews, even if mostly negative, will have to admit that the specs of the K-x are fantastic for the price, which is exactly what the K-x is designed to be. Even if it isn't a smashing success, I wouldn't be surprised if it does better than the Olympus E620, which the critics love, just because the E620 does not have HD video.
Actually market data shows now that almost 80% of people read online reviews. They are very powerful gatekeepers.
It will wreck the non-video E-620, but Oly is rumoured to have an upgrade soon.
But……for the non-vieo person, we're back to the "what is entry level?" price point issue, and that price point is now clearly well below what Pentax defines as DSLR entry level.
If the market does not take to video (small chance IMO) then Pentax is over-priced and niche. you have no choice because they've shut down production on the non-video models. I agree with that risk BTW.
Quote: True, this leaves K200D users who want to upgrade but don't want to spend $1,000 plus in limbo unless they switch systems. But if this group wants to upgrade on the cheap, why not buy the still very good K20D?
Because they want video and a by up to the D5000/T1i feature set (or even D90) without compromise. Have you tried the Canon AF recently? Beats the Safox 8 system.
This is also the group who spend mucho $$$ on after-market lenses and accessories. Your friend with the D40? No. She purely made Nikon money at Pentax's expense.
Quote: I hope Pentax does add a camera in the $700-900 price range. Personally I think they should drop the K-7 to this range by next year, then add a new flag ship.
We'll see.
We will. Pentax will tread water with this model partly because it has a few publicized flaws, the T1i and D5000 can and will price match (or close enough with their brand comfort level), and a lot of mid-range consumers will choose other brands. The thunder from M4/3 also has to be evaluated.