An Interview with Pentax/Ricoh Executive Vice President Jim Malcolm

Unexpresivecanvas · Apr 5, 2013

rwl408 said:
rwl408 wrote:

Where in the world did you get the 70-300mm USM for $319? A used one?

Brand new from Futureshop, heavily discounted two weeks ago. I love it.... it is a IS USM.. funny thing is I contacted a guy from CL who was asking $350 for one, and the night before of meeting him a friend called me regarding the Futureshop deal.. I walked out of the store with a big smile..

MightyMike · Apr 5, 2013

Unexpresivecanvas said:
Unexpresivecanvas wrote:

Hi Mike,

I really appreciate your response and your approach to it. My point is that in absolute terms, larger formats are much better than smaller ones. It's simply the law of physics and economics. Given the economic constraint more of us live in, there is a balance between how much money we can invest and the best results we can get from those resources. Undoubtedly the value equation of a product line like the Pentax K-- is a very good proposition for a lot of enthusiasts. But it doesn't mean that the marginal benefits of using better glass and better sensors can be ignored or omitted.

Also during the last year, and specially after the release of the Canon 6D and the Nikon 600D, my argument has been that APS-C cameras may be in trouble, as a decent and good FF is within a few hundred dollars of distance from the top APS-C.

I have been able to buy very very good glass from Canon FF for almost the same price as I paid for some lenses forthe Pentax APS-C. The expensive line of L lenses from Canon are intended for professionals and people who make a living from photography. But I am really excited and surprised by the quality of lenses like the Canon 85mm ($439), the 100mm macro ($399 on discount), the 17-40mm ($649), the 70-300mm ($319). The 50mm f1.4 ($299). With these prices and the quality and rendering a the 5D and 6D I couldn't justify myself by no shooting FF. Regarding long reach, you are right, they heavy and expensive, but they deliver the results. And also the big advantage of uisng Canon is that always we can buy a Sigma lens like the 500mm and a good TC.

The flaw is that 500/4.5 and 1.4x is now 1.5x shorter in effect. and even shorter still in total resolution. would a 2x work on the Canon? F9 is focusable on the K-5, potentially an issue on the K-5II and that is being looked into. I know on Canons cheap stuff they omit focusing past F5.6 and on the good stuff F8.0 is said to be the limit. sure as you said the bodies are getting cheaper but their is no equivalent reach and matching IQ for the same price and will likely never be.

If Pentax goes FF i'll probably buy one, the vast majority of my lenses are FF but i will never give up my APS-C for the reach.

That 70-300 lens is likely the only lens in your list i wouldn't buy as by its review i'd consider it to be mediocre (actually no bad by 70-300 terms but not good enough for me) the review of the 17-40 isn't too good either but i have a friend with one and he uses it on FF often and like people will say the review isn't everything, if it fits your style then who cares what the numbers are. (same reason i love my Sigma 24mm F1.8)

Unexpresivecanvas · Apr 5, 2013

I bought the 70-300mm to try it because it was cheaper than what people were asking in Craigslist and also because I don't shoot too much on the long side. Then, don't need to invest in expensive lenses for the long reach that I don't favor.

But I am gratefully surprised by the results I am obtaining with it. For the price and results it's a keeper. I just need it for the occasional use beyond 100mm.

With the advantage of the low light performance of the 6D, the 17-40mm is a good compromie between quality and price. I know there are much better lenses, but what I mean is that getting a lens of the quality of the 17-40mm for a little more than $600 is just a deal if somebody wants to enter the FF world w/o breaking the bank. I wouldn't call it a mediocre lens. It's a very good lens for FF for $639.

rwl408 · Apr 5, 2013

Excellent price and pictures. Yes, people ask for $300+ for a used one on eBay or CL. I know that because I am trying to get a couple of EF lenses first and then a 5D to ease my crave for FF.

Back in 2007 while I was shooting with DL, which now is my IR camera, I got a chance to play with a 5D and 70-300mm for one afternoon (Canon's photography in the park event) and was mesmerized.

Unexpresivecanvas · Apr 5, 2013

Hi Mike,

You may want to have a look at these galleries:

http://www.flickriver.com/lenses/canon/canonef70300mmf456isusm/

http://www.flickriver.com/lenses/canon/canonef1740mmf4lusm/

You are absolutely right. They are not the best lenses but for the price they represent one of the best values if people wants to buy brand new.

My argument is that these lenses are good to start shooting FF using the Canon 6D, which is only $400 more expensive than the K5-iis.

That's my argument, FF can't be ignored anymore by Pentax executives. The market is closing up.

MightyMike · Apr 5, 2013

Sorry but i never judge a lens by other peoples photos with that lens, too many variables. I can take photos with rather crappy lenses and make them look amazing, that doesn't mean the lens is any good. yes they are great value i'm not arguing that.

LFLee · Apr 5, 2013

Zvonimir Tosic said:
When I hear big plans like that, it does make me think hard about the still available common sense and sanity in heads of company executives.
From no 7. or no 8., to jump ahead to no. 3 in 3-5 years? But one may ask: no. 3 .. in what? In number of units sold? In profit achieved? Its open to interpretation.

This mighty plan is possible only if all the others suddenly decide to go off the market, and Sony commits to making origami cameras.

I mean, does Ricoh really pays their execs to speak out loud utter business nonsense, and from to time to time, pour a cold shower of non-inspiration on their userbase?

Alex Sarbu · Apr 6, 2013

Model Mike said:
Model Mike wrote:

Model Mike said:

Alex Sarbu wrote:
No, he wasn't dismissive at all; Pentaxians said they don't really need FF.

Click to expand...

There is another question, which he didn't address. It's whether Pentax should keep its options open in a rapidly changing market.

I think Jim will get the answer when he will talk with the people who jumped ship; so far there were the "happy" Pentaxians.

Model Mike said:
In any case, those who profess not to need FF could still end up buying into it. If Pentax had a compellingly small FF package, with DA lens crop option, we'd get the best of both worlds. Who wouldn't be tempted?

I don't need FF, yet I would most likely buy a Pentax one for no other reason than the viewfinder.

Alex Sarbu · Apr 6, 2013

Zvonimir Tosic said:
Zvonimir Tosic wrote:

Zvonimir Tosic said:

zakaria wrote:

"...there will be three dominant imaging companies on a global basis and it will be Canon, Nikon, and Pentax/Ricoh"

with out full frame I suspect!!

Click to expand...

When I hear big plans like that, it does make me think hard about the still available common sense and sanity in heads of company executives.

From no 7. or no 8., to jump ahead to no. 3 in 3-5 years?

It's not impossible, it probably isn't about total digital camera sales (think compacts). Are they really in 7-8?

For Pentax it should be easy to grow faster than the market.

Zvonimir Tosic said:
But one may ask: no. 3 .. in what? In number of units sold? In profit achieved? Its open to interpretation.

Now, that's a good question.

Alex

Chris Mak · Apr 6, 2013

DDoram said:
Dale108 wrote:

http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/features/an-interview-with-pentax-evp-jim-malcolm

A good interview. Surprised he is somewhat dismissive of FF demands of Pentax. Does this suggest no new FF cams in the pipeline? Hard to know.

I don't think Pentax can ever possibly be a big player in digital photography, if they don't invest in a proper Full frame set-up. Simple as that. Apsc has its own benefits, but the biggest: cost, is losing its large margin when compared to the latest FF offerings. If they don't decide to start releasing a FF system in the near future, they will simply remain what they are now: a cost effective way into high IQ for those that rule out Full frame and have no desire to ever upgrade.

However, if you really want to get serious about image quality, then Full frame is the way to go: I have several of the Zeiss PK mount prime lenses and use them on the K5IIs, but I'll be the first to admit, that if you view the large thread full of images of these lenses on fredmiranda.com, the ones taken with full frame cameras are simply a step beyond what I get out of them with the K5IIs, or others with other crop cameras, in pure IQ. You can argue that these lenses were designed for FF, but even then, I never see the same quality with any Apsc camera with any Apsc lens. A lot of Apsc devotees firmly tend to deny that there is a difference, or that the gap is closing, but keep an open mind, and you always see the clear differences.

So if Pentax wants to be a serious player, they should stop researching and researching and researching the market or the state of mind of the current user base, and just start off with the FF system. I think it will eventually do a lot of good for them.

Chris

Raffwal · Apr 6, 2013

DDoram said:
Dale108 wrote:

http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/features/an-interview-with-pentax-evp-jim-malcolm

A good interview. Surprised he is somewhat dismissive of FF demands of Pentax. Does this suggest no new FF cams in the pipeline? Hard to know.

Hey - who want a silly FF DSLR when we can have a Q?!

This is what the Pentax dude told in the interview:

"...our most exciting category, which is the Q."

gepe · Apr 6, 2013

Are well here's another long term user that is going to change brands.

Pentax obviously don't 'get it'.

Where are the new lenses, a 'system' is no good without a proper range of MODERN lenses, saying that there are 1000's of old lenses out there won't sell any new cameras because they are not suitable for today's high resolution sensors.

Also it is not true that all is well with the exiting range of cameras. I for one want to see a larger body on the flagship APSC camera so I can grip it with my little finger dropping off the bottom. Don't tell me to get a grip, I have two! But they are no good for tripod mounting as they put the camera of center and are not solid leaving room for vibration.

As for full frame, there is no point in putting one on the market without a full range of excellent modern lenses. Maybe that is why they have not done it earlier?

In any case I am not getting any younger and cannot wait any longer - Good Bye Pentax.

Model Mike · Apr 6, 2013

Unexpresivecanvas said:
Unexpresivecanvas wrote:

With the advantage of the low light performance of the 6D, the 17-40mm is a good compromie between quality and price.

Don't forget size and weight. The Pentax K-5 II and DA*16-50 f/2.8 is half a pound lighter than your Canon combo, much smaller, and less tiring to carry around. It also has a one-stop advantage.

I recently used this Pentax combo for a theatre assignment and the small size of the Pentax package was a big confidence booster when shooting back stage.

--

Mike

rc-soar

Explore rc-soar’s 1,303 photos on Flickr!

flickr.com

miles green · Apr 6, 2013

Zvonimir Tosic said:
Zvonimir Tosic wrote:

.. "I hear no full-frame, I hear no full-frame, I hear no full-frame" ...

Exactly!

Zvonimir Tosic said:
As all children do when faced with fear they must eventually outgrow, gather strengths to deal with it positively despite their wish to stay children forever.

But Pentax is not a child anymore. it would be much more honest from Pentax to stop stupid pretence, look at itself in the mirror, slap itself to wake up, stop foul talk and say with courage: "Watch for 11. 11. 2013" ... or something like that.

Commit, for once.

dboeren · Apr 6, 2013

What I'd like to see is for Pentax to start making progress on their lens roadmap and have all but the most budget releases be FF-compatible. This would build up some confidence and excitement among the users while paving the way towards a FF camera release. I mean, a camera without lenses is no good right? So build that critical mass of lenses first, and do it with energy, not a slow trickle of releases. Then once the lens portfolio is ready, the camera can come out and immediately have some attractive uses.

klavrack · Apr 6, 2013

Unexpresivecanvas said:
My argument is that these lenses are good to start shooting FF using the Canon 6D, which is only $400 more expensive than the K5-iis.

Difference in US looks twice that to me, even before you get into lens price differential.

Confused of Malvern · Apr 6, 2013

This interview strikes me as mainly hype and very little substance. Jim Malcolm isn't Executive Vice-President of Pentax Ricoh - he's only Exec VP Pentax/Ricoh USA. That's not the same thing. No disrespect, but he's basically just a sales manager and I doubt how much he knows about specific new product developments.

I don't get any sense that this Jim has any experience of actually using the products or even any great love of photography per se. Anyone who can describe the Q as their 'most exciting category' is certainly not interested in the same things I am (and I'm not talking about FF here). At least with Ned Blundell you got the sense that he cared about the photography.

Donald B · Apr 6, 2013

Unexpresivecanvas said:
Unexpresivecanvas wrote:

Unexpresivecanvas said:

Petroglyph wrote:

The time when I cared if PK comes out with FF camera is now slipping away thanks to the excellent Canon 6D. I got a chance to handle a Nikon D7100 a few days ago and I now think they will be hard pressed to compete even with APS/C. This (D7100) is a very fine camera with excellent specs. The only thing I can see Pentax has as an advantage is more compact size. I'll still hang onto my K5 as that is working great now on firmware 1.14. Also I'll look with interest at what will replace the 645.

Regards.

Click to expand...

Same here..... I set myself a time limit to hear from Pentax about FF and it was September 2012 -last Photokina-. compared to the blurred objectives and definitions of Pentax, I committed to my objectives and last Oct0ber I bought an old Canon 5D classic and a couple of prime lenses. Two months ago I went and bought the 6D with the 24-70mm. Three weeks ago I ordered the Canon L 17-40mmm, the 70-300mm USM (non L), the 85mm non-L, and the 100mm macro.

Once I tried the FF personally I just realized about the big gap in quality and performance between any APS-C and a FF. Specially that I am so happy with a FF that now is almost 8 years old! Sometimes for me is hard to decide between the 6D and the 5d given the color rendering of the 5D classic. When I started using the FF more and more I realized how naive are those who who keep saying "No FF", "No FF". But to each his own..... All I can say, based on my own experience, is that people who are APS-C purists (or APS-C fundamentalists) are holding and defending the false pretense that an APS-C is similar to a FF.

I understand that people can be happy with an APS-C, the same way I see people really happy shooting with m4/3s and I see a lot of people really happy shooting with a smart phone and a tablet. But please, wake up and don't get confused about things. A Medium format digital camera is way better than a FF; at the same time a FF is way better than any APS-C, same as some APS-Cs are better than some m4/3, and some m4/3s are better than some pinhead sensors and some pinhead senors may be better -for now- than some smart phones and some tablets.

People can be happy with whatever moves their boat,but it doesn't mean that whatever a few people here believe and worship as the ultimate true holds for everybody. I never was in the crowd of "No FF". I was travelling in the opposite way and that's why I moved to Canon and I am so satisfied that I can't wait to give my hard earned $ to them.

after shooting side by side studios with a k7 and a 5dmk2 the k7 left the 5d for dead on picture quality, skin tones on the 5d were nothing shot off horrible and is quite well known fact, the studio i shot for was quite miffed as the photos had to be sold side by side and the k7 shots were in another league. the samsung nx 20 for res test can easily keep up with any ff. as far as selling pentax ff you dont even see a apsc camera in any store in aus let alone sell a ff.

cheers don

petreluk · Apr 6, 2013

Zvonimir Tosic said:
Zvonimir Tosic wrote:

Zvonimir Tosic said:

zakaria wrote:

"...there will be three dominant imaging companies on a global basis and it will be Canon, Nikon, and Pentax/Ricoh"

with out full frame I suspect!!

Click to expand...

When I hear big plans like that, it does make me think hard about the still available common sense and sanity in heads of company executives.

From no 7. or no 8., to jump ahead to no. 3 in 3-5 years? But one may ask: no. 3 .. in what? In number of units sold? In profit achieved? Its open to interpretation.

This mighty plan is possible only if all the others suddenly decide to go off the market, and Sony commits to making origami cameras.

I mean, does Ricoh really pays their execs to speak out loud utter business nonsense, and from to time to time, pour a cold shower of non-inspiration on their userbase?

I don't think he means just cameras. If you include everything to do with imaging - and he said "imaging companies" not "camera companies" - then Ricoh are already massive because of document imaging, i.e. copiers. If you include all forms of repro, archiving and image enhancement - of which consumer cameras, binoculars, etc, will never be more than a small part - it's not so crazy. In fact, for a huge corp like Ricoh with all its established businesses, it's the kind of goal one might expect.

Where the dissonance occurs is when such a goal is seen in the daily context of consumer cameras when there never seems more than just enough money to get out the next cam and a couple of lenses. But then the big numbers aren't cameras but in all Ricoh's other businesses, I'd imagine. So yes, you could say it's sales talk but it's not crazy talk by any means.

miles green · Apr 6, 2013

gepe said:
gepe wrote:

Are well here's another long term user that is going to change brands.

Pentax obviously don't 'get it'.

No, it looks like they really don't get it...

gepe said:
Where are the new lenses, a 'system' is no good without a proper range of MODERN lenses, saying that there are 1000's of old lenses out there won't sell any new cameras because they are not suitable for today's high resolution sensors.

Also it is not true that all is well with the exiting range of cameras. I for one want to see a larger body on the flagship APSC camera so I can grip it with my little finger dropping off the bottom. Don't tell me to get a grip, I have two! But they are no good for tripod mounting as they put the camera of center and are not solid leaving room for vibration.

As for full frame, there is no point in putting one on the market without a full range of excellent modern lenses. Maybe that is why they have not done it earlier?

In any case I am not getting any younger and cannot wait any longer - Good Bye Pentax.

I completely understand your decision and may follow suit soon. I am not buying any more lens until Pentax announces a FF camera...

An Interview with Pentax/Ricoh Executive Vice President Jim Malcolm

Senior Member

Attachments

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Active member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Active member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Donald B

Guest

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts