[mecrox]

If this conglomerate is real, it wouldn’t surprise me at all, and in todays world, I think we’ll see more companies doing the same thing.

Consolidation - yes, that’s a very good point for the industry’s smaller players. Too early to say what this news will really amount to or if it’s an alliance at all, but if it means a fairly strong new player, especially in video, then what’s not to like. The new R and Z series aren’t much to write home about, at least for now and maybe for a few years till they sort out the woggles and fill the lens line ups. Anyway, just a sign of how so much is changing to meet the challenges of the next ten years.

---

Last edited by mecrox; 09-21-2018 at 06:41 AM.

[mee]

"Word of Mouth Brand" has to be the silliest thing I have heard this week.

:Hysterical:

Laugh all you want. It is how I learned Pentax even existed 8 years ago. And I sold that first Pentax DSLR to someone else who had never heard of the brand either (same age as I). She bought the camera from me simply because she saw enough of my work with it to see 'it' could take 'nice pictures.' If you weren't around 40 years ago when Pentax was popular, you just wouldn't know of them. Different PoV in different shoes.


When a company offers minimal advertising and has little-to-no in store presence then you're probably not going to hear about the brand from the company owning the brand.

[pinholecam]

Good to see some consolidation (if your news is true).

The Sigma venture into its own mount has been really niche even though I did like the DPxM series of cameras.
Panasonic has never beaten Olympus in cult status in the m43 segment despite being no slouch technically.
Leica has been a niche (but deep pocketed) player for a long time and I have not seen the new mount picking up much (a lot of the buyers are tied up in the legacy of the brand, meaning rangefinder cameras or at least something looking the part).

So 3, 1/3 companies coming together is not a bad thing at all as I feel that they all got something to offer and may come up with things differently.

[surfar]

So some details are starting to filter through.

There are 2 bodies.A high resolution(near 50mp) and a lower entry level model.

So looks like competition for $$$ony and Nikon.

Lenses rumoured to be 24-70 ...70-200 and 50mm...no details of aperture at this point.

[Winder]

So some details are starting to filter through.

There are 2 bodies.A high resolution(near 50mp) and a lower entry level model.

So looks like competition for $$$ony and Nikon.

Lenses rumoured to be 24-70 ...70-200 and 50mm...no details of aperture at this point.

Maybe they have improved upon the Foveon sensor enough that it is ready for implementation in a more mainstream body. The Foveon sensor is the one thing I don't see anyone talking about and there is huge potential to blend the organic sensor technology that Panasonic has been working on with the Sigma Foveon technology.

[surfar]

Maybe they have improved upon the Foveon sensor

Yes, thats a possibility?

Not long to wait and we could have a lot more details, usually everything is leaked a couple of days prior to official confirmation.

The entry level body hadnt been mentioned up until the last 12 hours.

[photoptimist]

Not at all,its realistic.

Pentax dominated the display windows of camera stores.

Times change of course, market dominance(whatever that can be defined as?) is temporary.Canon is riding out the front of the wave...RI/Pentax is deep in the tube wanting to get out!

It's not a realistic view because it assumes that all that matters is marketshare dominance.

Admittedly, marketshare dominance used to matter because before about the year 2000, the only way to sell consumer products was to have huge marketing budgets and huge funding for brick-and-mortar retail inventory and promotions in thousands of retail outlets. And the only way to justify all those costs was to sell huge volumes of units. Twenty or thirty years ago, consumers had no way of finding, learning about, and buying niche products.

But now the internet makes it easy for consumers to find obscure products, find supportive communities around obscure products (Pentax Forums!!!!!) and buy those products. Thus, Pentax design, build, and deliver awesome products at decent prices because it knows the old marketshare dominance model is a dinosaur. All that marketing and retail inventory makes Canikony products much more expensive without making them any better. Product makers no longer need to pay the wasteful high costs of marketshare dominance.

Let Canikony customers waste their money keeping Canikony fighting to stay atop pointless waves. Meanwhile, Pentax plugs along delivering great products at great prices.

Dominance is irrelevant and assuming that a company has failed if it doesn't have dominance is both negative and wrong.

[mecrox]

It's not a realistic view because it assumes that all that matters is marketshare dominance.

Admittedly, marketshare dominance used to matter because before about the year 2000, the only way to sell consumer products was to have huge marketing budgets and huge funding for brick-and-mortar retail inventory and promotions in thousands of retail outlets. And the only way to justify all those costs was to sell huge volumes of units. Twenty or thirty years ago, consumers had no way of finding, learning about, and buying niche products.

But now the internet makes it easy for consumers to find obscure products, find supportive communities around obscure products (Pentax Forums!!!!!) and buy those products. Thus, Pentax design, build, and deliver awesome products at decent prices because it knows the old marketshare dominance model is a dinosaur. All that marketing and retail inventory makes Canikony products much more expensive without making them any better. Product makers no longer need to pay the wasteful high costs of marketshare dominance.

Let Canikony customers waste their money keeping Canikony fighting to stay atop pointless waves. Meanwhile, Pentax plugs along delivering great products at great prices.

Dominance is irrelevant and assuming that a company has failed if it doesn't have dominance is both negative and wrong.

I get what you mean, but one can easily argue the reverse. The old dominance meme is just as important today because the internet acts as a huge megaphone and reinforcement mechanism for the dominant players. But it also facilitates a long tail of small players who would struggle without network marketing and word of mouth. However, those smaller players don’t challenge the behemoths, having only a paltry few per cent of the market between them.

Canon’s brand equity as the world’s #1 has been hugely beneficial to them and I am sure they will fight like heck to keep it. Sony and to a lesser extent Panasonic are dangerous to Canon because of their presence in broadcast and video kit. Nikon are no threat at all. I doubt Canon would fancy seeing themselves being bumped in favour of Sony or Panasonic as the new official supplier of imaging kit at the next big world sporting event. I look forward to seeing that kind of scrap hotting up in future!

[photoptimist]

I get what you mean, but one can easily argue the reverse. The old dominance meme is just as important today because the internet acts as a huge megaphone and reinforcement mechanism for the dominant players. But it also facilitates a long tail of small players who would struggle without network marketing and word of mouth. However, those smaller players don’t challenge the behemoths, having only a paltry few per cent of the market between them.

Canon’s brand equity as the world’s #1 has been hugely beneficial to them and I am sure they will fight like heck to keep it. Sony and to a lesser extent Panasonic are dangerous to Canon because of their presence in broadcast and video kit. Nikon are no threat at all. I doubt Canon would fancy seeing themselves being bumped in favour of Sony or Panasonic as the new official supplier of imaging kit at the next big world sporting event. I look forward to seeing that kind of scrap hotting up in future!

Excellent points. Yes, the internet does help dominant players at the same time that it helps the long tail of niche players.

Even though Canon and Pentax both make cameras, they don't compete with each other as much as it might seem. Canon buyers pay extra to get the same neck strap as sports-photog pro, saturation marketing, and ready off-the-shelf inventory at local retailers. Pentax buyers pay less but get a camera with high-performance in the photographic niche(s) that Pentax focuses on.

Pentax would lose money if it tried to emulate Canon. But Canon would also lose money if it tried to emulate the value-for-features of Pentax. At a deeper level, Canon and Pentax are not really fighting each other at all. In almost every product category, these kinds of dominant brand versus niche brand distinctions exist. And the internet helps both types of brands.

[mee]

Excellent points. Yes, the internet does help dominant players at the same time that it helps the long tail of niche players.

Even though Canon and Pentax both make cameras, they don't compete with each other as much as it might seem. Canon buyers pay extra to get the same neck strap as sports-photog pro, saturation marketing, and ready off-the-shelf inventory at local retailers. Pentax buyers pay less but get a camera with high-performance in the photographic niche(s) that Pentax focuses on.

Pentax would lose money if it tried to emulate Canon. But Canon would also lose money if it tried to emulate the value-for-features of Pentax. At a deeper level, Canon and Pentax are not really fighting each other at all. In almost every product category, these kinds of dominant brand versus niche brand distinctions exist. And the internet helps both types of brands.

haha now that's a rather Pentax-specific view!

Canon product buyers are simply buying overpriced neck straps, for the marketing, and the inventory at the big box retailer while Pentax product buyers buy high-performance cameras. Got it! I suspect the Canon product owners would likely disagree with you on this depiction..

Though what I think you're trying to say is basically, Canon user base is giant and thus with a budget, development plan and cycle, and marketing that fits being 'giant.' Pentax user base is dinky and thus with a budget, development plan and cycle, and marketing that fits being 'dinky.' And neither has any desire to change their status in the market.


I do agree with the internet helping these brands... it is along the lines of my word-of-mouth comment that the mod found so hysterical. One doesn't see Pentax in stores, even ones that sell Pentax, too frequently. Nor do we likely see people out shooting with Pentax gear too regularly. Personally in 8 years of looking, I've yet to see another Pentax camera in the wild (beyond my own). You either know someone directly who tells you about Pentax or discover them online from someone (be it review, online store that actually carries them, or forum discussion).

You're likely not going to see advertising like this:

For Ricoh or Pentax.... they're too small too care about that level of marketing. But it also concerns me because businesses rarely stay even with customers long term... and if you're not actively growing the brand you're inherently killing the brand slowly.


No, for those quick to attack that's not what you call "doooom".. but I cannot see how Ricoh expect Pentax to stay afloat if they aren't even slightly growing the numbers and doing that through continually innovating and appealing to photographers who still shoot with them as well as attracting some new customers.


It is simplified but think of caloric intake and weight. More calories in than expended and your weight goes up. Less calories in than expended and your weight goes down. We cannot starve the body and expect to remain healthy for too long before parts of the body revolt. If they want to remain the same weight, they need to maintain a balanced diet on steady calories and caloric expense. haha. I enjoy analogies.. and I'm hungry.

[surfar]

Maybe they have improved upon the Foveon sensor

A reasonably good chance but i'm guessing(calculated).

Most recent rumour is, a range of Sigma L mount lenses...an EF to L mount AF adapter(they have one for $$$ony,so its not that difficult to change the mount)...AND possibly a Sigma L mount camera.

---------- Post added 09-23-18 at 07:50 AM ----------

Perhaps a full-frame Sigma camera with the Foveon sensor and the Leica SL mount??

The chances are reasonable, just a couple of days but the leaky details will be tomorrow probably.

[BigMackCam]

Though what I think you're trying to say is basically, Canon user base is giant and thus with a budget, development plan and cycle, and marketing that fits being 'giant.' Pentax user base is dinky and thus with a budget, development plan and cycle, and marketing that fits being 'dinky.' And neither has any desire to change their status in the market.

Whilst I might take friendly issue with the term "dinky" and replace it with "much smaller", that's just semantics and me being a little picky Otherwise, I completely agree with your paraphrasing.

Whilst I respect everyone's right to their own opinions, I guess that's why I sometimes get a little tired by a few folks wanting (in some cases, dwelling on) Pentax to be something that it clearly isn't, and is very unlikely to be, regardless of past history and the rest of the ILC market. Although this is, I realise, an unrealistic wish on my own part, if everyone just accepted what Pentax is doing and chose to (a) stay with the brand because the equipment suits them, (b) jump to another brand because it doesn't, or (c) shoot a combination of brands to cover all their bases, well... that would be absolutely fine with me. The only guy who would lose out, I think, is @Adam - due to the reduced post count

Apologies to @surfar - I'll get back on topic now

[mee]

Whilst I might take friendly issue with the term "dinky" and replace it with "much smaller", that's just semantics and me being a little picky Otherwise, I completely agree with your paraphrasing.

Whilst I respect everyone's right to their own opinions, I guess that's why I sometimes get a little tired by a few folks wanting (in some cases, dwelling on) Pentax to be something that it clearly isn't, and is very unlikely to be, regardless of past history and the rest of the ILC market. Although this is, I realise, an unrealistic wish on my own part, if everyone just accepted what Pentax is doing and chose to (a) stay with the brand because the equipment suits them, (b) jump to another brand because it doesn't, or (c) shoot a combination of brands to cover all their bases, well... that would be absolutely fine with me. The only guy who would lose out, I think, is @Adam - due to the reduced post count

I think you're just really in the Pentax camp and it can be easy to get a bit overly sensitive and thus defensive on some of these things. A lot of those sentiments, I think, should be checked at the door once we enter the Non-pentax cameras section.


Yet a healthy community isn't one that just allows one PoV to be aired without being challenged. Just remember that there are people equally annoyed with your PoV as you are with theirs. And no one's opinion has more value than the others. We're all equal.

I don't think it would be wise to simply tell those who are unhappy with Pentax's current trajectory to get lost... this place would be really really quiet (and boring). If you really think this place matters to the well being of Pentax somehow, I'm thinking a quiet forum would bring a poor sight to newcomers. And this place always needs antagonists it seems... a revolving cast of pinatas to beat on.

[BigMackCam]

I think you're just really in the Pentax camp and it can be easy to get a bit overly sensitive and thus defensive on some of these things. A lot of those sentiments, I think, should be checked at the door once we enter the Non-pentax cameras section.

The Non-Pentax cameras section isn't segregated. It's just one forum, and part of a Pentax brand specific website.

As for being in the Pentax camp, I'm really not. I'm as much in the Sony camp (not always a popular thing to say around here ), given my considerable investment in the Hasselblad HV, Sony A7 MkII and a decent range of A-mount lenses. Pentax is one of two brands I currently shoot, and there's nothing to say I won't shoot other brands in the future. But I do shoot Pentax, and that - aside from my moderating duties - is why I spend my time here...

Yet a healthy community isn't one that just allows one PoV to be aired without being challenged.

Absolutely. And that same healthy brand-specific community is one that allows challenges to the challenges, which I guess should go without saying.

Just remember that there are people equally annoyed with your PoV as you are with theirs. And no one's opinion has more value than the others. We're all equal.

I'm rarely annoyed with anyone's PoV if it's expressed and presented within forum rules, balanced, and recognises as well as respects the dynamics of this brand-specific wesbite. I do sometimes get frustrated with repeated negativity towards Pentax, given the brand-specific nature of the forums (including the non-Pentax forum, which - as I said - is one part of an overall brand-specific site). But I'm sure everyone else gets frustrated with other stuff here too. It's the nature of forums generally. That said, as a contributing member I absolutely value everyone's PoV equally. As a moderator, I sometimes have to decide when things are inflammatory or brand-bashing, but that's a different discussion.

I don't think it would be wise to simply tell those who are unhappy with Pentax's current trajectory to get lost... this place would be really really quiet (and boring). If you really think this place matters to the well being of Pentax somehow, I'm thinking a quiet forum would bring a poor sight to newcomers. And this place always needs antagonists it seems... a revolving cast of pinatas to beat on.

I don't think anyone here could point to a time when I've told those who are unhappy with Pentax to get lost. That's just not in my nature.

I'll refrain from commenting too much on antagonism, as that term is open to some difference in interpretation and definition. Different points of view are always welcome, but disruption isn't. Both of those potentially fall within the definition of antagonism, hence you understand my reticence

Do pick up with me via PM if you want to discuss any further on the above, as I think we've both diverted the OP's thread enough

All that said, this discussion is a good one

[surfar]

Apologies to @surfar - I'll get back on topic now

Its good, every thread can deviate...i like all the opinions.

All that said, this discussion is a good one

Yes, looking at the big picture its exciting to many! I like to hear what the open minds are thinking.