Pål wrote: "However, there are some reasons for optimism. The rather ambitious goal of 20% marketshare for DSLR's, can only indicate that Pentax have a total revamp of their camera line-up's in store."
This seems most likely. DSLR's have opened up the playing field quite a bit. Just look at the digital P&S market. Sony is a big player, as well as Panasonic, who jumped on board right away. They never made film P&S's. Mind you P&S buyers are far different from DSLR buyers. The Pro segment may not change unless Pentax has something that is really great & not half-baked like the MZ-S (though I like the MZ-S). We'll have to wait & see. Peter --- Pål_Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Alex wrote: > > I bet Pentax will sell every *istD they can make, > even maybe if they price > it slightly higher. The main concern is if they can > recover the R&D costs > (and make some profit) before replacing it (100D and > 10D are older and sells > in higher volume). I'd really like to know how an > *istD-like camera costs > (R&D+manufacturing)... > I'm optimist, however: I think Pentax will survive > :-)) > > > REPLY: > I'm afraid I'm not very optimistic regarding the > *ist D's fate in the marketplace. There are three > fundamental problems with the camera: 1) it is not > entry level enough to make an impact. By this I mean > it is just a "me too" compared to the D10 and the > D100 and has no obvious price advantage compared to > those. It will face hard competition from > forthcoming, cheaper DSLR's. 2) Design. The *istD is > ugly with no design flair thats going to convince > anyone. It is not one of those hip digital products > (like the Optio S) that sells on looks alone. Nor is > it one of those classic great Pentax designs. It > small size is not going to be seen as compelling > enough for the majority of users. Small size works > as selling argument when the products are > "conceptually small" as well. The *ist D looks just > like a shrinken big cameras whereas small slr's from > the past had a "small look" like the OM series and > Pentax M's. 3) Pentax brand image has deteriorated > significantly during the last decade! > as the company have only been concerned about > short term profit instead of innovation and > long-term staying power. Pentax have deliberately > traded marketshare for SLR's for profit. Its going > to be hard to reestablish their former glory (20-30% > market share). Also, Pentax lacks the compelling > technology and perceived lens line-up completeness > of the main competition (Minolta have announced USM > lenses) and therefore will be seen as less > desireable. The *ist D will mainly sell to existing > Pentax users, and that may well be all Pentax is > aiming for. > > However, there are some reasons for optimism. The > rather ambitious goal of 20% marketshare for DSLR's, > can only indicate that Pentax have a total revamp of > their camera line-up's in store. At least if their > claim is going to be taken even remotely serious. > Pentax must at least be on equal term with the > competition in technology and line-up in order to > achieve such a goal. There will be four mayor player > in the DSLR market by 2005. One of them will have > the largest slice of the market (Canon). Hence, 20% > market share, which Pentax aims for, is a > considerable share. The president of Pentax have > quoted the last year of saying that company will > make a new, more compact 67 (it must, in my opinion, > mean motorized film transport (and why not? the > camera is totally battery dependent anyway) and > quite possibly AF when their at it; a digital > solution for the 645 system; and two additional (to > the *istD) 35mm DSLR's - one novice model and a pro > camera. Earlier it has been stated that P! > entax will have three film slr's in the line-up as > well and it now seems reasonable to assume that > they are siblings of the three DSLR's. Finally, the > long awaited flagship is in the cards and before > 2005 as well. > I fell pretty confident that the latest > modifications of the lens mount imply a change to > USM AF system. Such a move sort of explains it all. > If Pentax makes USM lenses there are no real reason > not to not use the opportunity to change to a fully > electronic lenses mount. After all, such lenses will > be of limited use and value on older cameras anyway > as their AF won't function. If such a move is in the > plans, it follows that there are no real incentive > to maintain backwards compatibility to lenses older > than the "A" series in entry and mid level lenses > when such compatibility is inevitably going to be > absent in forthcoming high-end lenses. This is all > speculation on my part, but this scenario explains > both the Limited lenses and the MZ-S. Basically, > they are stepping stone, or upgrade paths if you > like, from older cameras and lenses to the > forthcoming models. It is no coincidence, is > suspect, that the Limiteds echo some of the > "classic" K lenses incompatible with the *istD (an! > d possibly forthcoming bodies). They provide and > alternative that can be used on future bodies. The > MZ-S provides a similar stepping stone in interface > as it has a hybrid interface between LX-type and Z-1 > type. It also has built and material quality more > reminiscent of classic periods. A metal body, > perhaps even weather sealed, could be expected for > the pro body. > > Pål > > > > > > > > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
