Re: Pentax future: advanced and classy or cheap and shoddy? [was: RE: Hypothetical Question]
Rick wrote: Some may argue that film sales has declined over the past few years and this may signalled the end of analog photography. This is hardly from the truth as if you look at the recent photo industry's sales survey, film is starting to make a come back again. REPLY: Here in Norway we are in the front runners of digital camera market share. Still, film sales this year breaks all records. Go figure... Most analyst thinks film and digital will coexist for the foreseeable future. Kodak and Fuji think so too. Pål
Re: Pentax future: advanced and classy or cheap and shoddy? [was: RE: Hypothetical Question]
I am usually a lurker on the list, but reading all the posts from everyone here on Pentax digital, I find that most people have their facts misplaced. First of all, the market isn't going full digital yet and it may not be for many years. The fact is, people still want good old fashioned "prints". The really interesting part is that, we may all think that men command the photographic market, while in fact, almost more than 46% of photo consumers are women! They spend the money and they still spent it on good old fashioned film. Some may argue that film sales has declined over the past few years and this may signalled the end of analog photography. This is hardly from the truth as if you look at the recent photo industry's sales survey, film is starting to make a come back again. It seems that when digital came into the market, everyone was fascinated by the opportunity for anyone to do their own photo finishing at home with their computer. This is indicative of the good old B&W darkroom days of some 30-50 years ago. But eventually, people are going back to their photo finisher for digital print processing, just like how the majority of us gave up B&W and color printing and let the finisher do the job. Last but not least, no digital camera today that is affordable to the common person is any superior than a 35mm negative. Now, to digital sales.. I guess, most of you have read Pal's comment on digital sales and unfortunately, he *IS* telling the truth. The only people who are making money on digital are probably the photo stores. And why is that? That is because, the 35mm market is for now totally saturated. There isn't any growth in the 35mm market anymore. North American families typically have 1-2 cameras in their household and that usually compromise of a point & shoot and or a dated SLR system. And like a computer, the 35mm system has become commodotized. Most stores usually make most of their money not on cameras, but on accessories they sell because margins are a little better there. On the other hand, the digital market still has room to grow, because not every household has it. Now, what does it all have to do with Pentax? I think Pentax knows this. From the mid 80s to the late 90s, as Pal had indicated on his previous post, Pentax was a strong zoom compact maker and still is. While Pentax designed most of their compacts in house, other makers farm out their compacts to someone else. There is also a little known fact, but Pentax also has the expertise to design and manufacture their own lens shutter for zoom compacts, something other makers do not. There are also many first technologies employed by Pentax in their zoom compacts that received little recognition. Suffice to say, they are king in their business and still is. On the SLR front, Pentax sells the MZ series very well, though probably not as well as they liked these days. But keep in mind that Pentax is targetting a different market than Nikon and Canon and that market is very well received. But when it comes to digital or any other innovations however, Pentax does fare well against its competitors. They just don't want to bleed money profusely like their competitors do, and that's why they're a little slow in putting things out. That should also explain why they don't put out many of their secret weapons. And besides, being first in any digital innovation does not always "ENSURE" you to be the leader of that field in the future. And that reminds me of a little history about personal computers. During the early 70s to the mid 90s, the personal computer industry suffered from the same fate as the digital market we are experiencing today. There were so many computer makers, so many innovations, too many to list. Ti, Tandy, Commodore, Atari, Sinclair and the list goes on and on. I also remembered how people immediately wrote obituaries of both Apple and the PC when the Commodore Amiga and the Atari ST computers were kings of their day. Today, Apple G4s and Pentium 4 PCs are kings, the very platform that people in those days said would not survive. All I am saying is that, do not write off Pentax so easily, because I believe that when all this nonsense subside, you'll see only a few handful of digital makers survive. And Pentax will be one of them. That's my 2 cents worth.Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
Re: Pentax future: advanced and classy or cheap and shoddy? [was: RE: Hypothetical Question]
- Original Message - From: Brad Dobo Subject: Re: Pentax future: advanced and classy or cheap and shoddy? [was: RE: Hypothetical Question] > Hey Bill, when you looked at the Canadian site, did you notice something > odd? Nice new site, but they don't list a single flash unit!!! Some stupid > over-sight I suppose. Yer right. The repair department must have taken over website design. William Robb
Re: Pentax future: advanced and classy or cheap and shoddy? [was: RE: Hypothetical Question]
Hey Bill, when you looked at the Canadian site, did you notice something odd? Nice new site, but they don't list a single flash unit!!! Some stupid over-sight I suppose. Brad - Original Message - From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2002 10:31 AM Subject: Re: Pentax future: advanced and classy or cheap and shoddy? [was: RE: Hypothetical Question] > > - Original Message ----- > From: Pål Jensen > Subject: Re: Pentax future: advanced and classy or cheap and > shoddy? [was: RE: Hypothetical Question] > > > > Dan wrote: > > > > > I just looked at Pentax's lenses on B&H, are there more > lenses than > > > they list? They show 8 pages of lenses for Nikon, 6 pages > each for > > > Canon and Minolta, and then 3 pages for Pentax (Leica and > Contax also > > > have 3 pages each). > > > > > > Pentax is currently offering about 60 lenses. I have no idea > how many of those B+H list. > > I just counted 55 lenses on Pentax Canada's website. More than > enough for any user, I would think, and they don't include older > lenses (the 43mm LTD is no longer listed, for example). > > William Robb > >
Re: Pentax future: advanced and classy or cheap and shoddy? [was: RE: Hypothetical Question]
Ok, but how does that relate to North Americans? I hope we get them all too. I like AF TC's although I've *just* bought one that is not..I like a FA 17mm f/2.8 (non-fisheye) but that would cost a bundle I'm sure. Ya, drop the power zooms, save batteries! Kill Tameron definitely. And stock the stuff in Canada Brad - Original Message - From: "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2002 9:09 AM Subject: Re: Pentax future: advanced and classy or cheap and shoddy? [was: RE: Hypothetical Question] > >Pentax is currently offering about 60 lenses. I have no idea how many of > >those B+H list. > > Couldn't sleep and got nothing to do. I just counted from the Pentax Japan > web site. The results are as follow. > > - 57 lenses & 5 TCs in total > - 37 AF lenses (excluding 2 soft focus lenses) > - 25 supposed-to-be-good AF lenses ranged from 20mm to 600mm (fisheye > excluded) to choose from (including F17-28, FA20-35 & FA24-90, but excluding > all consumer zooms, based on my very own & subjective standard). > > Anything missing or should-be-made lenses based on my very subjective > opinion? > - FA 17mm prime or zoom (non-fisheye) > - FA* 70-210/4 ED [IF] (power-zoom-less) > - FA 100/2 [IF] (optimized for portrait) > - FA* 500/4 or 4.5 ED [IF] > - make all TCs AF > - replaced all power-zoom to power-zoom-less > - drop all Tamron cones and redesign all current consumers to better built > - ??? > > regards, > Alan Chan > > _ > Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 3 months FREE*. > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail&xAPID=42&PS=47575&PI=7324&D I=7474&SU= > http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg&HL=1216hotmailtaglines_addphotos_3 mf > >
Re: Pentax future: advanced and classy or cheap and shoddy? [was: RE: Hypothetical Question]
- Original Message - From: Pål Jensen Subject: Re: Pentax future: advanced and classy or cheap and shoddy? [was: RE: Hypothetical Question] > Dan wrote: > > > I just looked at Pentax's lenses on B&H, are there more lenses than > > they list? They show 8 pages of lenses for Nikon, 6 pages each for > > Canon and Minolta, and then 3 pages for Pentax (Leica and Contax also > > have 3 pages each). > > > Pentax is currently offering about 60 lenses. I have no idea how many of those B+H list. I just counted 55 lenses on Pentax Canada's website. More than enough for any user, I would think, and they don't include older lenses (the 43mm LTD is no longer listed, for example). William Robb
Re: Pentax future: advanced and classy or cheap and shoddy? [was: RE: Hypothetical Question]
Oh, just an FYI for Canadians. I cannot remember, but one member I've discussed with on previous occasions. I bitched loudly at Pentax Canada, and probably just from luck, they got *new* brochures for 35mm lenses. It looks like the same old one, until you look closer and see the additional new lenses. About time, way to go Pentax! > Pentax is currently offering about 60 lenses. I have no idea how many of those B+H list. > > Pål
Re: Pentax future: advanced and classy or cheap and shoddy? [was: RE: Hypothetical Question]
I like that opinion. I also have a question of sorts, I thought a good 14MP full frame sensor would meet or defeat the finest grain 35mm films? If not, it's close. So if, as Glen says, 30MP+ come out (will they be like computer CPUs?) when and what will be enough? Unless you want something for a board in Times Square, isn't anything much more complete and utter overkill? How many of use just like slides, or 4x6, 5x7, 8x10, 11x14. I think we'll see a large gap, consumer and pro. They'll get the monsters in case, and we will never get them due to the price. And RAW format with these things? Computer companies are loving this, oh the profits!! Perhaps the 35mm DSLRs will be consumer only and top out at not much more than 14MP. Consumer, amateur. All pros will go for new high tech and big sensors, of a medium format/large format type? Brad - Original Message - From: "Glen O'Neal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2002 1:49 AM Subject: RE: Pentax future: advanced and classy or cheap and shoddy? [was: RE: Hypothetical Question] > One point to remember. We heard quite a few months ago (before Photokina) > that along with the new digital SLR they were developing new wide angle > lenses for the new line. With the APS sized sensor cropping of the image > this makes sense as well as new technology to reduce chromatic aberrations > (also a problem with APS sized sensors). This would indicate to me that, > even if Pentax does actually get a DSLR to market next spring it will most > like not be a full frame sensor. I think the next step for the digital world > will be full frame sensors for medium format cameras as well as more > sophisticated technology for the 35mm full frame sensors and imaging engine. > Perhaps a 645 sensor first. By the time these 30MP+ monsters come out the > APS sensor that we are so anxiously waiting for in our DSLR will be no more > than a toy that is used mostly in point and shoot cameras and low end > DSLR's. > > Just my humble opinion > > Glen > > -Original Message- > From: Alexander Krohe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2002 2:43 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Pentax future: advanced and classy or cheap and shoddy? [was: > RE: Hypothetical Question] > > > Pål wrote: -- > > Sure, but I don't think LX with AF should be > interpreted litterally; more of an AF > > camera that occupies the LX place in the line-up. > > Yes, that is how I have meant it. > > >Both Nikon and Canon sell well of > > their upper level bodies. When a company like > Kyocera could manage to keep four (or > > was it more) upper end bodies in the market > simultaneously, neither of them selling in > > volumes, it is nothing but a total disgrace that > Pentax didn't manage a single one > > during the 90's. > > Pentax' entire product line seems to be centered > around P&S cameras. I was told by a pentax rep that in > the early 90s (before they introduced the FA-series), > Pentax had almost dicontinued the 35mm SLR system. At > that time Pentax dramatically lost market share (35mm > SLR), but on the other side, their P&S zoom cameras > became extremely succesful. They continued their 35mm > system because they thought > - that making a 35mm system will boost the sales of > P&S cameras (as it shows their expertise as a camera > maker) and > - they will get new customers from those who want to > upgrade from a P&S camara to a SLR system. > > I think this strategy was quite successful.They > survived and regained lost market share. It also > explains the product philosophy behind the MZ-cameras: > They are all either entry level cameras or for > students. Similar to the espio/iqz P&S cameras, they > make a large variation of MZ cameras that are all > based on one single platform. So they can appeal a > variation of different customers while keeping costs > low. > > However, in this line up is no room for an expensive > model. You need another camera platform (expensive), > and such a model is much more difficult to sell with a > different marketing stategy and a higher risk. > > > True, the LX was still around but it was beyond its > selling date. So > > Pentax deserve the reputation they now have; entry > level cameras there are no point in > > buying because if you buy a Nikon or a Canon, or > even a Minolta, you have something to > > upgrade to. > > > I think in the 90s the product management was even > hostile against high quality 35mm gear as they also > ditched the successor to the PZ-1p without any > replacement. Instead they ke
RE: Pentax future: advanced and classy or cheap and shoddy? [was: RE: Hypothetical Question]
One point to remember. We heard quite a few months ago (before Photokina) that along with the new digital SLR they were developing new wide angle lenses for the new line. With the APS sized sensor cropping of the image this makes sense as well as new technology to reduce chromatic aberrations (also a problem with APS sized sensors). This would indicate to me that, even if Pentax does actually get a DSLR to market next spring it will most like not be a full frame sensor. I think the next step for the digital world will be full frame sensors for medium format cameras as well as more sophisticated technology for the 35mm full frame sensors and imaging engine. Perhaps a 645 sensor first. By the time these 30MP+ monsters come out the APS sensor that we are so anxiously waiting for in our DSLR will be no more than a toy that is used mostly in point and shoot cameras and low end DSLR's. Just my humble opinion Glen -Original Message- From: Alexander Krohe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2002 2:43 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Pentax future: advanced and classy or cheap and shoddy? [was: RE: Hypothetical Question] Pål wrote: -- > Sure, but I don't think LX with AF should be interpreted litterally; more of an AF > camera that occupies the LX place in the line-up. Yes, that is how I have meant it. >Both Nikon and Canon sell well of > their upper level bodies. When a company like Kyocera could manage to keep four (or > was it more) upper end bodies in the market simultaneously, neither of them selling in > volumes, it is nothing but a total disgrace that Pentax didn't manage a single one > during the 90's. Pentax' entire product line seems to be centered around P&S cameras. I was told by a pentax rep that in the early 90s (before they introduced the FA-series), Pentax had almost dicontinued the 35mm SLR system. At that time Pentax dramatically lost market share (35mm SLR), but on the other side, their P&S zoom cameras became extremely succesful. They continued their 35mm system because they thought - that making a 35mm system will boost the sales of P&S cameras (as it shows their expertise as a camera maker) and - they will get new customers from those who want to upgrade from a P&S camara to a SLR system. I think this strategy was quite successful.They survived and regained lost market share. It also explains the product philosophy behind the MZ-cameras: They are all either entry level cameras or for students. Similar to the espio/iqz P&S cameras, they make a large variation of MZ cameras that are all based on one single platform. So they can appeal a variation of different customers while keeping costs low. However, in this line up is no room for an expensive model. You need another camera platform (expensive), and such a model is much more difficult to sell with a different marketing stategy and a higher risk. > True, the LX was still around but it was beyond its selling date. So > Pentax deserve the reputation they now have; entry level cameras there are no point in > buying because if you buy a Nikon or a Canon, or even a Minolta, you have something to > upgrade to. I think in the 90s the product management was even hostile against high quality 35mm gear as they also ditched the successor to the PZ-1p without any replacement. Instead they kept the PZ-1p in the product line for a IMO give away price (but nevertheless couldn't sell much of them). As a result everybody expects Pentax to be cheap. There was (is?) no long-term marketing strategy for high end 35mm gear. They did not even market the 35mm SLrs as a system, they rather marketed single products. Even up to now Pentax USA and Pentax Europe do not bother with black limited lenses. Still no ultra-wide Af lens. > There are, however, signs that Pentax have gotten the message. I take the introduction of the MZ-S as an indication that you are right. But things are slowly moving. After the introduction of the MZ-S two years ago there has been silence again. The photokina no-show must have sent a desastrous message as they decided to "semi-announce" the upcomming APS D-SLR through internet groups (normally they remain tight-lipped about news releases). To be honest I think the product management has still a long way to go. They don't communicate to the customer in which direction they will go and what the selling points of their products are. E.g. you have to go to the Japanese web page to find out what the complete product line is. And when the MZ-S was introduced, they left it to the customer to find out if it is made of die-cast parts or just of metal-coated/plated plastic (due to an error in translation). > Also, I believe that > digital will force higher end cameras from Pentax. With some luck, we wil see film > versions of the as well. If for nothing else, then as a means for Pentax to cover > developing costs. Full-frame higher-end 35mm digital slr's will start competing with > Pent
Re: Pentax future: advanced and classy or cheap and shoddy? [was: RE: Hypothetical Question]
Alexander wrote: > I think in the 90s the product management was even > hostile against high quality 35mm gear as they also > ditched the successor to the PZ-1p without any > replacement. Instead they kept the PZ-1p in the > product line for a IMO give away price (but > nevertheless couldn't sell much of them). As a result > everybody expects Pentax to be cheap. But here is the big mystery; why did they bother with the huge lens line-up. I believe they are still second only to Nikon in the sheer number of lenses available. Why keep all those special lenses in production? For the MZ-5 customers? Hardly. > There was (is?) no long-term marketing strategy for > high end 35mm gear. They did not even market the 35mm > SLrs as a system, they rather marketed single > products. Even up to now Pentax USA and Pentax Europe > do not bother with black limited lenses. Still no > ultra-wide Af lens. I believe the lack of long term strategy is the culprit. Not engineering ambitions or product development. The frustrated (yes they are!) Pentax engineers have developed several interesting high end bodies that didn't get the go ahead. This incudes the "Z-2"; nickname for the Z-1p sucessor and the unnamed LX sucessor described by Pentax head of camera division at Photokina '96 as "a professional body closer to the LX than the Z-1p but without interchangeable finders". Meanwhile, several extremely strategically placed Pentax people have made no secret of the fact that they are working on a "flagship". > I take the introduction of the MZ-S as an indication > that you are right. But things are slowly moving. > After the introduction of the MZ-S two years ago there > has been silence again. The MZ-S was an anomaly. Whatever long-term plan Pentax had, the MZ-S wasn't part fo it. The MZ-S and it's digital sibling was developed at expense of the projects they were already working on to much dismay. I have no idea what they were working on, but signals clearly states that the MZ-S showed nothing of the good things to come. With the latest filing of patents I have no doubt that it includes color matrix metering, IS, USM and the KAF3 mount. How these plans figure today is unknown to me. > According to a rumor spread on the luminous landscape > forum, Pentax is still committed to a full frame D-SLR > (with FOVEON sensor). No idea if that is true, did you > hear anything about that? I haven't heard anything about it apart from the message posted by William and the one you're refering to. However, if the sorce is Foveon, something thats likelay as the rumor apparently has originated outside the "usual" Pentax channnels, then it might be true. Whatever, the rumor has long circulated that a major manufacturer is going to release a full-frame Foveon chipped DSLR. > I hope you are right but it will be expensive and > there is no guarantee that this will pay off in the > future. I fear that this is exactly not what they are > prepared to do. So far, I do not see a long therm > product strategy. The MZ-S looks to me as a temporary > solution rather than as the base to a series of new > high end digital and film cameras. > It took Canon more than 20 years of a consequent > product policy to get into their present dominant > position on the market. When the typical slr buyer, the one who wanted a "good camera" went to the advanced P&S camera, Pentax was there. In fact, they led the way with their pioneering zoom compacts. Pentax dominated this market. What they failed to see with this move, was that the remaining slr buying public changed. Pentax did still try to make another Spotmatic, not realising that the buiyng public couldn't care less and their most important priority was to be seen with the brands the pros are using. During the 90's Pentax has been living well of their huge P&S market share. However, Pentax core market, the zoom compact, is being eaten alive by digital. Pentax can never achieve the same position in P&S digital as they had in the zoom compact segment. The digital P&S market has far more competitors; among them several electronic giants. Pentax need to look to their traditional stronghold; they are among the few manufacturers who does have a complete slr lens line in place. So basically, they need to do something serious in the slr area as this is a market they can expand in. Also, the MF cameras are under pressure from digital although I doubt MF has much importance in Pentax overall: it could be sacrificed. Whats interesting with DSLR is that the game is not only about fancy AF and FPS anymore, but will center more around sensor type and quality, and of course, price. This field will also draw many new users not previously into SLR photography. All this makes this field interesting and hard to predict. A full frame camera makes sense. Would you buy a digital slr from someone who didn't provide an upgrade path? Even if you knew you wasn't going to buy th
