Artur wrote: > I don't agree with the point of view stated above (and it has been already > disscussed several times), because the photographic market is not a constant > thing. Conditions change. Yes, Pentax lost the battle, but why do you think > they also lost the whole war? They can and IMHO should counterattack. And > actually they do. Of course, I don't know if Pentax is going to try to > reclaim its position in the pro market (I know many of you don't like the > word "pro" - forgive me for using it here) but I don't think that new > advanced features like P-TTL and HSS were introduced for amateurs only or > for two cameras only. MZ-60 doesn't support neither of them AFAIK... > Trying to battle Canon and Nikon is NOT foolish if Pentax has a good > strategy and competitive products.
It's true what you say but I doubt Pentax will try to compete in the 35mm pro market. I believe Pentax should concentrate on the entry level stuff and rather makes something unique in the higher end. There are signs that this is where they are heading judging from the Limited lenses and the MZ-S. >And it has... You would be surprised how > well the MZ-6 is in Poland. It gathers great opinions in the Usenet, wins > magazine tests (beating easily products like Dynaxx 5 and EOS 300). It seems > to become the standard entry level camera for those who plan to develop > their photgraphic skills instead of EOS300 - people either ask for the MZ-6 > or ask for advice on what choice of the camera they should make and get the > response of "MZ-6". And if these people want to get some advanced camera in > the future, they will surely go for the MZ-S or even more advanced product > of Pentax ( if such a product exists of course). Perhaps in Poland. However, here in Norway Pentax SLR market share is only 4% probably close to the situation in large markeds like the US. This is from a company that had more 30% market share 20 years ago. > What Pentax needs for its counterattack to be successful are IMHO the > following: introduction of the image stabilisation lenses, ultrasonic AF > (not necessarily but would be nice to have it), faster fps rate (at least > matching that of the Z-1p) and MOST OF ALL a proper, clear and consistent > marketing strategy as well as proper cooperation with local dealers, who are > often so much incompetent... Apart from the latter point, why should people buy this Pentax over a Nikon or a Canon? Pentax may do such a move to consolidate but thats an expensive way to keep the perhaps 10% or so market share world-wide. Above all, if Pentax wants to increase their market share they must make something far more unique than a Nikon or Canon copy. >However, I think that unlike Minolta > Pentax is able to get back into "pro" (oh, yes - again this hated word, but > i don't know how to call it in a different way) market and settle there. I haven't seen any sign ever during their history that Pentax wanted to do this. Why now? > The battle in the MF market is of course important, but unless Pentax > introduces interchangeable backs for the 645 and 67, it will not be able to > win the battle with Contax and Mamiya. This is of course but a personal > point of view:) But Pentax never wanted to. It's obvious that Pentax found a medium format niche; the MF camera that operates as a 35mm slr. They have stayed at that niche ever since. Pål - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
