Paul, you see, I cannot agree or disagree with your statement about appeal of bigger sensors (penile and Leican aspects aside), for it is too general for me to able to reason about it. In my opinion it very much depends on the specific case. It very well may be that in Israel and in Detroit people have different views as to what a photographer should look like. It very well may be that wedding photographer clients and war journalism department editor/head may have different views on this matter. I can give you some rather ridiculous examples as to what kind of prejudices are out there in terms of photography. And in my opinion these prejudices do not disappear, they just shift. Interestingly, most recent Tamron offering of 16-300 zoom lens for APS-C cameras would suggest that Freudian aspect of photographic gear is still very much alive and kicking, so to say.
I am really happy to read that you have a friend in Pentax marketing who indicated to you that sales are up and that Pentax brand is gaining popularity. This is really wonderful news. It then stands to reason that so far Pentax marketing strategy has been sound. Whether or not it will remain sound in the term longer than current will have to be seen. I sincerely hope that having been able to plan so good so far they will be able to extend their success much further. On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 5:47 PM, Paul Stenquist <pnstenqu...@comcast.net> wrote: > The fashionable appeal of sensors of a certain size seems to be wearing thin. > While a bigger sensor has had a certain cache in the past, like the Leica dot > or a large penis, it seems to be fading. And I believe Pentax is currently > selling as many K-3s as they can manufacture -- although I have no data to > back that up. in any case, my frien in the marketing department at Ricoh says > sales are way up following recent marketing efforts, and the brand is doing > well. > > Paul > On Apr 13, 2014, at 10:35 AM, Boris Liberman <bori...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I agree, that in the hands of capable photographer K-3 with DA* 16-50 >> is probably 95% as good as 6D with 24-70/2.8L if seriously lighter and >> somewhat smaller. However, it is not the opinion of knowledgeable >> photographer such as you, Paul, that matters (no disrespect here). In >> order for K-3 to compete, Pentax/Ricoh have to cause a shift in public >> opinion. This is a task that I honestly have no idea how to approach. >> >> I should point out that Q-system, K-system and 645-system is three >> systems to support. Arguably both Nikon 1 and Canon M are "third" >> systems as far as these companies go. The first two being APS-C and >> 24x36 mm systems. However, I am not entirely sure that Pentax has >> capacity to sustain "battle" on all three fronts. I very much would >> wish them to be able to, as this will at the very least provide >> competition to big brands thereby making everybody's life better. But >> I much rather Q-system wasn't started at all whereupon the resources >> invested in it were invested elsewhere. For example, I really am sad >> knowing that Pentax/Ricoh fully abandoned Ricoh GXR. I've just read on >> one Russian forum that at the recent exhibition Pentax/Ricoh reps were >> surprised to see Ricoh GXR-M with interchangeable lenses. But then >> again, I realize that I am probably not among the people who're >> targeted by Pentax/Ricoh marketing anyway. I am not serious enough to >> buy into 645Z/D nor am I willing to keep spending money on APS-C - >> I've got what I need. >> >> >> On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 5:04 PM, Paul Stenquist <pnstenqu...@comcast.net> >> wrote: >>> But I suspect that the K-3 with Pentax DA* lenses can outperform the 6D in >>> most respects. Or at the very least, it's roughly equivalent. Pentax is >>> still a niche marketer. If they can succeed with the K-3 and the 645Z, they >>> may well be at the limits of their current capacity. I'd hate to see them >>> abandon further development of APS-C glass by spreading themselves too thin. >>> >>> >>> On Apr 13, 2014, at 9:13 AM, Boris Liberman <bori...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Indeed, you're right, Paul. >>>> >>>> I should point out that Pentax 645Z would compete with the Nikon D4 or >>>> Canon 1Dx (or whatever the top models they have out there), which >>>> means prices in excess of USD 5,000. Pentax K-3 competes with Nikon >>>> D7100 and/or Canon 70D or should they introduce replacements for D300 >>>> and 7D respectively, it would compete with them. Now, assuming my >>>> reasoning is correct, it leaves the whole market segment of less >>>> expensive 24x36mm cameras, such as Nikon D610 or Canon 6D unattended. >>>> It is entirely possible that Pentax considers these cameras to be >>>> direct competitors of K-3. However, as it is now, K-3 looks less >>>> attractive to me than, say Canon 6D. At the same time 645Z (or >>>> D800/D4, 1Dx/5Dmk3) is out of my financial reach. So, I am capped as >>>> far as sensor size possibilities go, although in Canon/Nikon land I >>>> could upgrade from top of the line APS-C to 24x36. >>>> >>>> It is entirely possible that I am not inside what Pentax considers >>>> their target demographics. Suffices it to say, I am far more >>>> interested to see what kind of market development bring Sony A7 series >>>> of cameras, as I can easily see one such camera in my photo bag when >>>> my Ricoh GXR-M's expire. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 3:51 PM, Paul Stenquist <pnstenqu...@comcast.net> >>>> wrote: >>>>> Can't use all the Pentax APS-C lenses on 24 x 36 anyway. Pentax doesn't >>>>> have a state of the art lens line for "full frame." >>>>> >>>>> Paul via phone >>>>> >>>>>> On Apr 13, 2014, at 8:14 AM, Mark Roberts <postmas...@robertstech.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Paul Stenquist wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> 51 megapixel 43.8 x 32.8 sensor. ISO to 204,800, and it's a bit smaller >>>>>>> than a Nikon D4. Why would anyone want a 24 x 36 Pentax? >>>>>> >>>>>> So they can use the same lenses on their full-frame and their APS-C >>>>>> cameras? And not buy another entire set of lenses? >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia >>>>>> www.robertstech.com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>>>> PDML@pdml.net >>>>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>>>>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >>>>>> follow the directions. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>>> PDML@pdml.net >>>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>>>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >>>>> follow the directions. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Boris >>>> >>>> -- >>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>> PDML@pdml.net >>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >>>> follow the directions. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> PDML@pdml.net >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >>> follow the directions. >> >> >> >> -- >> Boris >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >> follow the directions. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
