Hello, again, On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 7:01 PM, Tom C <[email protected]> wrote: >> From: Alexandru-Cristian Sarbu <[email protected]> >> >> Hello, >> >> Comments interlined below. >> >> On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 6:36 PM, Tom C <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> They're really only competing in the APS-C arena and that's about it. >>> The 645D is just about out of everyone's price range including mine. >>> Was it ever relevant? >> The 645D is definitely relevant, just not to people like you or me. >> Same for the Q, which sells quite well in Japan. >>> > > The question is are those cameras and others, in toto, making money > for Pentax or Pentax Ricoh? Probably, I can't say I know. The 645D is, afaik, the best selling digital medium format camera (at least in Japan, where the information is more freely available) - and they have big plans for it. I would be surprised if the Q weren't making a profit; after all, it shouldn't cost much more to build than a high end compact. It's aggressively marketed in Japan, and the Japanese people seems to like it - at a time it was #1 in bcnranking.jp's top selling ILCs. > >>> The K5 and derivatives may be solid cameras in their own right. Having >>> used Pentax for 20 years I'd be lying and stupid to say they didn't >>> make a product that delivered good results. >> True, but unfortunately the lack of higher end solution could be felt >> sometimes. >>> > > We agree there. :) Yep, we definitely do. > >>> Fact's are they have only about 2% of market share and predictions are >>> it will decline. >> Which facts? Whose predictions? >> The only 2%-like figure I saw some time ago (it was even less, about >> 1.5%) included compacts, and since units were counted it was mostly >> about compacts. I couldn't care less if Pentax were to abandon >> compacts altogether (but, Pentax, please: if you'll do it send me an >> Optio WG-2, first). > > The low end of the P&S compact market is dying due to camera phones. > How can you sell a camera if they're essentially being given away with > cell phones to people who largely find that quality 'good enough'? Then we agree those total market share figures aren't really relevant. Even the DSLR market share is relevant only as a starting point. > >> About declining, nope, Pentax is actually heading in the opposite >> direction; because they're now Pentax Ricoh, and not some fund starved >> Hoya division. The next year, if we'll survive the imaginary >> apocalypse, should be very interesting IMO. >>> > > I'm not as sure about that. I remember the same high hopes expressed > both when they partnered with Samsung and when Hoya acquired them. But I am, at least about their intentions. Samsung did nothing, other than providing an average sensor and rebadging some Pentax products (while they were developing their own system, behind their partner's back).
I remember different things about the Hoya hostile takeover. I remember a prolonged scandal, when the Pentax board didn't accept the merger plan proposed by Pentax and Hoya's CEOs - which ended when Pentax was basically forced to accept the buyout (due to shareholders' pressure). I remember how Hoya actually wanted the medical division, but had to accept the Imaging Business division as well. OTOH, Ricoh wanted Pentax Imaging Systems; they founded a separate company, Pentax Ricoh Imaging Company - yes, Pentax Ricoh, in this specific order; and they entrusted to the newly founded company their own camera division. Now everywhere I can hear them talking about stuff like growth or doubling the sales in 2013. I'm hearing they hired back R&D engineers, to make up for those fired by Hoya. They have 2-years roadmaps totaling 8 K-mount lenses + 1 TC, 4 645D ones and 3 for Q; and, most important, they're on track with the execution. >>> If Pentax was working on a FF body they should certainly say so, >>> rather than hide it. As some have pointed out, the lack of a FF lens >>> line is problematic in that regard. >> Remember Nikon? They said nothing about working on the D3, until >> they've made it, am I right? > > I wasn't paying attention to Nikon back then, but I'll grant that you > are. Now however a FF body is more of an expectation as opposed to a > surprise. > >> For whatever it's worth, Pentax declared they are working on "full >> frame technologies" (while insisting a market ready product is nowhere >> near, and not making any promise). They agree with the FF lens line >> issue, but I'm sure that's something that could be fixed... in a >> decade or so. >> >> Best regards, >> Alex Sarbu >> > > The fact that they realize that's an issue yet are unable to deliver > when major competitors have been for quite some time may be the > symptom of a problem, not a reason for confidence, IMO. Which Pentax was unable to deliver (a full frame system, I presume)? The old Pentax Corporation, bought out by Hoya? Pentax, as a Hoya division? Or the 14 months old Pentax Ricoh? > > Really though, the point of my original post was not to denigrate > Pentax it was to say one doesn't need to be necessarily constrained by > brand. Obviously constraints differ from person to person. And I didn't argued with that. Though, such "constraints" could be more important than we like to think. Our lenses, the fact that we're familiar with Pentax equipment would be put in balance with whatever advantages a new system has. > > (I feel like I should say "I am woman, hear me roar" at this point, > but I'll refrain from saying anything that ridiculous) > > Cheers. :) > > Tom C. -- Best regards, Alex Sarbu -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
