Alex wrote: I bet Pentax will sell every *istD they can make, even maybe if they price it slightly higher. The main concern is if they can recover the R&D costs (and make some profit) before replacing it (100D and 10D are older and sells in higher volume). I'd really like to know how an *istD-like camera costs (R&D+manufacturing)... I'm optimist, however: I think Pentax will survive :-))
REPLY: I'm afraid I'm not very optimistic regarding the *ist D's fate in the marketplace. There are three fundamental problems with the camera: 1) it is not entry level enough to make an impact. By this I mean it is just a "me too" compared to the D10 and the D100 and has no obvious price advantage compared to those. It will face hard competition from forthcoming, cheaper DSLR's. 2) Design. The *istD is ugly with no design flair thats going to convince anyone. It is not one of those hip digital products (like the Optio S) that sells on looks alone. Nor is it one of those classic great Pentax designs. It small size is not going to be seen as compelling enough for the majority of users. Small size works as selling argument when the products are "conceptually small" as well. The *ist D looks just like a shrinken big cameras whereas small slr's from the past had a "small look" like the OM series and Pentax M's. 3) Pentax brand image has deteriorated significantly during the last decade as the company have only been concerned about short term profit instead of innovation and long-term staying power. Pentax have deliberately traded marketshare for SLR's for profit. Its going to be hard to reestablish their former glory (20-30% market share). Also, Pentax lacks the compelling technology and perceived lens line-up completeness of the main competition (Minolta have announced USM lenses) and therefore will be seen as less desireable. The *ist D will mainly sell to existing Pentax users, and that may well be all Pentax is aiming for. However, there are some reasons for optimism. The rather ambitious goal of 20% marketshare for DSLR's, can only indicate that Pentax have a total revamp of their camera line-up's in store. At least if their claim is going to be taken even remotely serious. Pentax must at least be on equal term with the competition in technology and line-up in order to achieve such a goal. There will be four mayor player in the DSLR market by 2005. One of them will have the largest slice of the market (Canon). Hence, 20% market share, which Pentax aims for, is a considerable share. The president of Pentax have quoted the last year of saying that company will make a new, more compact 67 (it must, in my opinion, mean motorized film transport (and why not? the camera is totally battery dependent anyway) and quite possibly AF when their at it; a digital solution for the 645 system; and two additional (to the *istD) 35mm DSLR's - one novice model and a pro camera. Earlier it has been stated that Pentax will have three film slr's in the line-up as well and it now seems reasonable to assume that they are siblings of the three DSLR's. Finally, the long awaited flagship is in the cards and before 2005 as well. I fell pretty confident that the latest modifications of the lens mount imply a change to USM AF system. Such a move sort of explains it all. If Pentax makes USM lenses there are no real reason not to not use the opportunity to change to a fully electronic lenses mount. After all, such lenses will be of limited use and value on older cameras anyway as their AF won't function. If such a move is in the plans, it follows that there are no real incentive to maintain backwards compatibility to lenses older than the "A" series in entry and mid level lenses when such compatibility is inevitably going to be absent in forthcoming high-end lenses. This is all speculation on my part, but this scenario explains both the Limited lenses and the MZ-S. Basically, they are stepping stone, or upgrade paths if you like, from older cameras and lenses to the forthcoming models. It is no coincidence, is suspect, that the Limiteds echo some of the "classic" K lenses incompatible with the *istD (and possibly forthcoming bodies). They provide and alternative that can be used on future bodies. The MZ-S provides a similar stepping stone in interface as it has a hybrid interface between LX-type and Z-1 type. It also has built and material quality more reminiscent of classic periods. A metal body, perhaps even weather sealed, could be expected for the pro body. P�l
