Pentax has brand recognition only to people like you and me who have been
using cameras for the past 30 years. like it or not, lens quality is assumed
across the board, and if it takes more than 5 seconds to explain
differences, it doesn't matter to the new buyer. they want megapixels, a
full lens line, and knowledge that a large number of top pros use the brand.
they assume that the pros know what they are doing and since it is too
complicated for them to understand right away, they rely on the pros making
a good choice. when the person on the street says that a good picture is one
that they can recognize the subject, lens quality as you or i understand it
has no effect on salability. there are two basic ways to cope with that,
become just like them, or sell only to the people who care. either way,
total revenue drops, either because of shrinking profit margins in a
commodity market, or because of working only in a niche market where unit
sales are low. once you are in a niche market, prices have to rise, usually
significantly. Konica Minolta is taking the niche market route. Olympus is
still trying to do both at the same time.
Herb....
----- Original Message -----
From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2005 10:20 PM
Subject: Re: Pentax K 2.5/200mm
<Soapbox>
I think I was talking about company survival. If pentax becomes a Me-Too
company, who's offerings are no better than last years Canon then they
will have no reason to survive, and they won't. All that's kept them
afloat as an SLR manufacture since the glory days of the M series has been
the fact that they were different, they cared about the past while
building a bridge to the future. The _lenses_ were what mattered, (if the
bodies mattered there would be have been no Pentax after the demise of the
MX, and Super Program. The A series (except for the Super Program) and P
series bodies were singularly uninspiring, especially when compared to the
well built cameras of the past. The SF and P series were large a clunky,
the only thing any of these cameras had going for them was that they
mounted Pentax glass, (apologys to all the PZ/Z1-p lovers out there, but
it was feature wise out classed by everyone else, when features began to
matter more than performance). Even the MZ/ZX bodies which started a
small Pentax renaissance were very lightly built and not particularly
rugged. Nice cameras good handling "good enough" viewfinders but once
again only the glass made them really worth having. (They were appealing
however you can see how much because Canon and Minolta brought out small
light SLRs to compete with them). Pentax had better not abandon what made
them special, (and they trumpet their backward compatibility so they know
the score). If they use it simply as a marketing claim, and don't
deliver, then they will be gone, because rather than turning around the
bleeding will accelerate.
</soapbox>
