Is Pentax Dying?

[compuwar]

And yes Perhaps Pentax needs a reality check on how to compete in the market.

If getting taken over because you can't make it isn't a reality check, I'm not sure what is...

Pentax entered the DSLR market far too late in comparison to everyone else. But in 2001 sensors will still only a couple of megapixels and it wasn't really until 2003 where the sensors were able to capture enough data to seriously make a go at replacing film.

See, now that's the kind of thinking that'll get you slaughtered in an industry.

First of all, great film-replacement cameras were out in 1998- granted in pre-production models but still you have to do all the work to get there, starting a few years later isn't going to help. 1998 was the first year that USA Today went to press with front-page pictures made from a digital camera taken by in-house photographers no less! Now, you may indeed say that a professional pre-production 1998 digital camera wouldn't hold a candle to film at the time in terms of resolution. Here's a little enlightenment for you- not everything is about resolution.

USA Today had pictures of Picaboo Street winning Gold from the slopes in Nagano, Japan in time to make the next day's printing. We had the photographers modem their shots _from the slopes_. Everyone shooting film had the story one day too late. USA Today had bright, color pictures above the fold when everyone in the US woke up for the day. Good enough quality for newsprint. How much revenue do you think camera makers make from newspapers? How many initial cameras and lenses did newspapers purchase switching over to Canon's digital offerings?

I remember the debrief the USAT photo department did for a select few folks. I remember the epiphany moment where I "got" that digital was in to stay and was going to win. If you were going to sell lots of cameras, you had to be in the media space by 1999, you had to have media photographers playing with prototypes that were going to go to production.

By *early* 2002, most of the formerly film-only digital camera companies were putting out DSLRs that were sufficient for full-bleed double page magazine spreads, children's sports, fine art nature, etc.

October of 2003? I'd bet that 30-40% of the Pentax film body users had already switched to someone else's brand by then. Just like Nikon lost most of the "low light no flash in the church" wedding photographers because they couldn't figure out high-ISO for a few years, being a few years out loses you bigtime in some markets. Nikon's only just starting to recover from that bumbling and fumbling period.

This was about the the time that pentax introduced their first dSLR's but really they didn't have a serious camera until the K10D. This is a camera that won this many awards.

Winning awards doesn't necessarily sell cameras. By 2006 most wedding photographers had already decided where they were going to spend all their lens money and done it. The award you want to win is "best selling..."

Yes pentax does not have 2432143 different camera variants but look, if anything Apple has proven that you don't have to have 534534 different models to be successful. Apple has basically 3 Laptops. Consumer version, niche thin highly mobile and Pro level. If anything its actually good ... less R/D money spent on different cameras.

First of all, Apple is in a completely different industry (ok, I think we're safe thinking that you're not a business major.) Second of all, if it were a mistake in the camera industry you'd see sales figures that would kill off some of those bodies a lot earlier than production stocks (making them potentially lose money- lots of it- and hey- that'd be obvious in the financial reports.) More importantly, Pentax hasn't proven that you don't have to have more than three models to be successful. Finally, no- Apple sells more than three models of portable computers- there are two screen sizes (and used to be two screen surfaces- not sure if the new 17 drops that or not) and two CPU speed options on the pro line.

Do you think the companies who can afford to hire the best and brightest put out extra cameras because it's a dumb idea? Do you think the low-end, low-margin consumer camera space gets more cameras more quickly because it's a dumb business practice?

Pentax many things going for them, even though they have lost a lot of market share, their consumer satisfaction rating is far higher than their competitors. They only reason they are not selling cameras because people don't know about them.

Ever heard of Yugo? Yep- that's right- just because you're a household word doesn't mean you're selling things like hotcakes. Ok- so Yugo has a negative brand image, let's delve right into the industry we're talking about.

Ever heard of a little camera company called Kodak? They put out a couple of DSLRs, and to take care of the lack 'o lens issue, they put one out with a Nikon F-mount and one out with a Canon mount. They also had more megapixels than their competition and their IQ was great. Show me a new Kodak DSLR.

Pentax don't have "many" things going for them. They have two. They used to produce great cameras and they can produce great optics. They have a lot more things going against them.

Here's another thing that may shock you. There's an old saying: "Perfect is the enemy of good enough." You can spend lots of money making totally awesome equipment that's going to sell at a high price, or if you sell it at a low price is going to reduce your profit margins significantly. You can spend a lot less money making totally adequate equipment that you can sell at a low price and make good margins on, or at a low enough price that your sales volume gives you more profit. Good businesses do the latter, great businesses do both. Only the high-end boutiques can do the former, and in camera-land it's not working (see Hasselblad and Leica for examples.)

Hoya has proven that they are willing to get behind pentax and they are introducing more cameras at PMA 09 this year. The good news is that Pentax is still a profitable company and as long as profits are turned, the cameras will still get made.

I don't think Hoya have proven they're willing to get behind Pentax. In fact, I'd say for a Japanese company executive to admit to the press that they basically purchased Pentax for the endoscopy business the sign may be "For Sale" rather than "We're behind them!"

I think if Hoya thought they'd lose less money by shutting down Pentax than they'd lose by putting in just enough capital to keep it afloat they'd probably do that. However, there's still a chance someone will blunder by and purchase it at a cheap price, and some money beats no money.

I think it might even be a good idea to experiment with B&M Pentax Stores like apple has done with great success. Test markets like New York, Tokyo, San Francisco would great places to start.

ROTFLMAO!

Do you have any idea how much that costs? Do you have any idea at what rate camera stores are shutting down? Do you have any idea how much money Sony lost before they dropped the exact same idea with a much larger product line? Have you seen the retail sales figures lately?

A place were you can bring people in and really teach them how to use their cameras. So many people just get a Nikon D60 with a ****** kit lens and never really achieve the full potential of their camera. Why play Best buy to carry your camera when you can just make your own store? Its genius thank you lol.

It takes a lot of money to train people to teach photography. It also takes time- that is time for the customer to sit there and try to get it. That's not going to make the cameras cheaper or the customers more willing (I want to take pictures of my new baby- I can be in and out of BB in 10 minutes $600 poorer, or I can spend two hours at a Pentax store (if I happen to live where one is) and spend $1000, of which Pentax just lost most of their margins building, stocking and operating the store. That's genius alright. If by "genius" you actually mean "I should be doing my sixth-grade homework right now, but my parents think that when I'm on the computer I'm doing it!"

Want to talk actual genius? Nikon's D40 and D60 are just that (especially the D40.) Remember, the average DSLR buyer is at 1.1 to 1.2 lenses, meaning they *never* take advantage of the potential of the camera. So why sell them more camera than they need? Heck, take out the focus motor, they'll never do more than the kit lens anyway! (The disadvantage is that the D40 is too good in terms of IQ, so non-consumers want them, and they like the idea of compatibility and love the price point- ah well, the best laid plans..)

The other thing is that Nikon's kit lenses are surprisingly good for their price. Canon's had to up their kit lens game to try to stay competitive. Repeat after me: "Perfect is the enemy of good enough!"

 

[budkid]

I have my k10d!! I got it right before the k20d came out. I am waiting for the next model to upgrade.