Pål, We are violently agreeing on most points. The one point where you and I differ is that in the USA, Pentax cannot change their image to save their lives. Canon and Nikon are so strong that they haven't a chance. I'm saying that they can't create any 35mm oriented SLR (digital or otherwise) that would loosen the strangle hold. Perhaps where you are from reason prevails better than here. But here (USA) Pentax has to do what Japanese cars did years ago. Start by being cheap, gradually offer more and more while still holding the price. Eventually, people start to buy on price/quality and then they become a player. I'm saying Pentax needs to LOSE money to establish themselves at least in the USA, otherwise they will never be able to change their image.
No arguments that Canon can sell on a tighter margin and make money or even change the margin based on volume buying. Pentax is going to have to buy market share, if they want it. That is why I was suggesting some kind of rebate orientation. Let's say that 10D is selling street for $1500. *ist D could sell for $1600 list, 1400 Street and a rebate of $200. That put's them at $1200. Now people in the USA would take notice. They would look at the specs and see that the *ist D is not lacking and look at the price and now consider buying a Pentax because the price is much better. Would Pentax make money? Probably not. But if this camera is about survival, then they need to price it where it NEEDS to be to get the market share. Maybe in your country making a better, sexier mousetrap will work, but over here, ain't gonna happen. Even my local camera shop (carries only Pentax & Nikon) considers Pentax the same way. They sell MF Pentax both 67ii and 645nii, they sell everything Nikon and then they sell lower end Pentax SLR's and P&S. Anyone who is considering something lower than an N80 they steer to Pentax, N80 and up, they go Nikon unless the customer wants medium format - then back to Pentax. Mind you, this is a Pentax friendly store. But they don't carry any truly competing products to Nikon in the prosumer category. In this country, Pentax either needs to buy market share (undercut the competition) or play in their own niche (P&S and low end SLR). Bruce Tuesday, March 4, 2003, 1:00:01 PM, you wrote: PJ> Bruce wrote: >> That I agree with. For Pentax to go anywhere with this digital, it >> must be SIGNIFCANTLY cheaper than the Canon 10D. PJ> But I don't agree with it! I don't think pentax will be cheaper than the Canon unless Canon deliberately would want to rip their customers off. Canon have far larger market share and higher PJ> volume than the Pentax. It probably also have less features and use a simpler AF system. I cannot imagine the *ist D is going to be cheaper. Besides, being as keen on volume that Canon is, and PJ> the fact that every manufacturer knows that the key to profit to DSLR is to get volume up so that it becomes a mass commodity, I'm certain Canon will be in the forefront of "cheap" DSLR. I'm sure PJ> they won't sit still loosing market share because someone is undercutting them. >>That is the best >> distinction that could be made. It also is in keeping with what >> people think of Pentax. PJ> But that is whats "killing" them. Having cheap customers won't get them anywhere. What worries me is what the cheapness anticipation indicates. What lies behind it is the belief that Pentax PJ> aren't "worth" much, therefore they must be "cheap". This is the undercurrent of all those net discussion of the *ist D, and I'm surprised that people doesn't notice this. After all, theres PJ> nothing in the *ist D specification that indicatetes that it is cheaper than the Canon, but still people think it is in spite of the fact that hardly anyone can compete with Canon on price. >> On count 1, they have succeeded. I haven't heard anyone saying that >> it seemed to really suck. On count 2 the jury is out. If the price >> is ballpark of a $1000 or so, they will have a hit. People will buy >> it - not just Pentaxians. If it is close to the Canon D10 street >> price (200 or less) then only Pentaxians will buy it. PJ> And thats what I have been saying all the time. Theres nothing in the *ist that makes it more worth than a Canon or Nikon. However, I do not at all believe that the *ist D will be particularly PJ> cheap or sufficiently more competitively priced than comparable Nikon/Canon. Why should Pentax be able to offer a DSLR cheaper than Nikon and Canon when they both are making more DSLR's and are PJ> constantly pushing the price envelope? I don't know what this assumption in based on. Sure the jury is still out when it comes to price but I believe the Pentax *ist D will be priced similarly to PJ> the Canon 10D. At least, I can't find no reason to assume otherwise, but still people do just that. Pål
