I've stayed out of this one so far, but here are a few thoughts. This isn't about quality or price!
Pentax will never get into the 35mm pro world in the same way as Canon and Nikon until and unless it does the same deals with rentals and loaners as they do. Even then, it would take years to establish an organisation capable of being at every major sports venue and political meeting in order to provide the breakdown service that pro's need, and you still have to get them to switch from their D1's etc. If it's too hard and/or too expensive for members of this list to switch brands, how do you think most newsrooms and agency photographers would go trying to persuade their editors to replace all the existing gear holus-bolus? As far as Joe Sixpack is concerned, from where does he get the impression that pro's only use Canon and Nikon? Not from newspapers or weekly generalist magazines, nor from watching photographers at work (how many of us regularly see a media mob for long enough to work out the numbers of brands in use?). IMO, this impression, if it exists outside the ranks of amateur photographers at all, comes from two sources: the first is specialist advertising, in mags such as National Geographic and other glossies, which use high quality and dramatic images attributed to a particular brand (and in at least one case, the stated camera used was not the one that took the picture!). Secondly, when JS walks into a camera store with a fistful of dollars (or plastic) in his hot little hand, and says to the salesman 'I want a good camera', he's going to walk out with the one that the store is making most profit on/is going out of range/ is offering the most spiffs on. Very few of these types of sales are based on a rational analysis, because mostly the customer has no idea of the technology he's buying, and is easily impressed with such rubbish as '45 focus points' when a tenth of that number will work perfectly well (or, for our manual focus aficionados, none!). For Pentax, they make a large number of P&S models aimed at the low-end film market, and presumably do very well out of them. They now have in the market a couple of digital models which have been well reviewed, but are at the top end price-wise. (Incidentally, I think that saying that Pentax have no experience at making digitals simply because they haven't yet marketed an SLR is doubtful: they have already had some years experience of the practical manufacture of digital cameras, and there cannot be much difference in designing the control interfaces whether you are using an SLR or P&S body. The essential is to capture the image at the sensor and store it - same technology whatever the shape of the body.) The final factor has to be marketing, and that is not just a question of advertising to the public. Pentax must get the product on the shelves and in the display windows, and in the stores with sufficient incentives to sales staff to sell it. They must raise their brand awareness with JS - to me, I'd be pushing the high level of use of the 645 and 6x7 amongst professionals as a major plus point, allowing the carrot to be dangled of a cheaper way in to 'the Pentax way' than these high-end cameras and for P&S users, a good upgrade path from their current kit. When (not if), Pentax markets a digital SLR using the current lens range, with or without an adaptor, I will probably buy one if the price is reasonable - and I don't set any level at this stage. However, it will be because I _want_ a DSLR, not simply because everyone else says they're the thing to have. it woulf be good if it were full frame, but if it's of the order of 4-5 megapixels, that will be quite good enough for what i will use it for - personal stuff for digital display or transmission, and it's certainly most unlikely I'd ever want an exhibition quality print from it. A little more than 2 cents worth - sorry! John Coyle Brisbane, Australia > "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >Whether or not the amateur will ever invest in the "pro" camera > >is immaterial. What is important to the consumer is the cachet > >value that the brand imparts. Having an F5 in the lineup makes > >an F50 look like better equipment. > >The benefit derived is purely psychological, but is more > >important than any operating function of the camera. - 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 .
