Pentax - what do they need to do to become the third force in photography?

Laying my cards on the table I've been a Pentax shooter for over 30 years but that doesn't mean that I don't appreciate that there are many other great cameras out there so this is most definitely not intended as a fanboy post pouring scorn on the other brands. A friend and fellow pro shoots with an EOS 5D Mk3 and another uses the Sony A7Rii. They're both great cameras, they certainly turn in good results so lets leave the silly points scoring outside the thread.

As a Pentax user for so long I've watched the brand go from a major force in photography in the ME Super era with the Pentax LX, 645, 6x7 and many pro's using their gear to a shadow of its former self. On the other hand I do feel that since the Ricoh acquisition of Pentax the product range has taken a giant leap forward and the range is now world class. Strategically they've made some really good moves. I genuinely believe that in body stabilisation as used by Pentax/Sonmy/Olympus is a better approach than stabilised lenses used by Nikon/Canon because with in lens stabilisation you're paying more for every lens you buy and suffering in terms of bulk and weight too. In addition with in body stabilisation it seems to me that you benefit from the fact that any lens you ever buy secondhand - even a 1955 pentax screw mount lens will benefit from stabilisation and be fully compatible with the latest Pentax cameras.

Lets looks at the current Pentax range:

The 645Z is clearly an exceptional camera for professional landscape and fashion/advertising photographers. At around £5-6k it consummately outperforms the Nikon and Canon top line pro cameras for image quality and it matches the Hasselblad and Phase 1 medium format rivals at 1/2 to 1/4 the price.

The K3 offers EOS 7D Mk2 levels of performance at roughly half the cost. In addition the weatherproofing and build seems to be less plasticky and better than rivals. Speaking personally I actually had my eye on the Nikon D7100 about 5 years ago (I'd always had a thing for Nikon) but when I went into the shop and held the Nikon D7100, the Canon EOS 50D and the pentax K5 the build quality of the Pentax was in another league altogether. My choice given they both used the same sensor was a no brainer... Basically a £600 Pentax is built like a £5000 Canon or Nikon and I find that an very compelling proposition.

The (about to launch) full frame Pentax K1 looks to offer an incredible bang for the buck at £1599. The Nikon D810 is some £800 more expensive, it has an earlier variant of the sensor, no in body stabilisation, no GPS, no astro tracking, no articulated screen, no in body illumination for night use and no sensor shift, although it has more focus points and I suspect better flash integration. The Canon EOS 5D Mk3 offers only 20 megapixels rather than 36, no in body stabilisation, no GPS, no astro tracking, no articulated screen, no in body illumination and no sensor shift. The Canon does offer more focus points and like Nikon better flash integration and higher sync speeds. The Canon is close to £1000 more for nearly half the sensor resolution and lets face it Canon have been lagging compared to the Sony sensors used by Sony, Nikon and Pentax for years in terms of dynamic range.

So it seems to me that Pentax are now offering some pretty compelling, indeed world beating cameras for a lower cost than the competition and combining it with better build quality. The lenses are generally cheaper and just as good or better too - the Pentax Limited 31mm, 43mm and 77mm are some of the greatest lenses ever made with Leica standards of build quality and stunning optics and handling. The 24-70mm F2.8 lens is a couple of hundred cheaper and outperforms the equivalent Nikon and Canon glass so I'm kind of wondering given all this what stops you coming back to Pentax??? If you're a sports or wildlife photographer then I totally get it - Pentax do not currently offer very fast telephoto glass as Canon and Nikon do, but aside from those special cases I think the lens range is now comprehensive enough to cater for fashion, wedding, landscape, family and architectural photography. The new K1 will be launching with a full frame lens range covering 15-200mm in 3 lenses at F2.8, then there's the limited lenses, the choice of several macro's at 35mm, 50mm and 100mm. On top of that for extended telephoto use there's the 200mm F2.8, 300mm F4, 150-450mm F4-5.6 and the 560mm F5.6. There simply aren't many gaps there for any normal serious amateur and pro use.

So if you were the CEO of Pentax what would it take to make you switch? What do you think they're doing well and what do they need to do better? Clearly if you have an extensive lens collection that weighs into the equation, but if you're a Canon/Nikon APS shooter you're bascially looking at binning your existing lenses anyway so are Pentax in the running for your money?

I hope fellow photographers will take this in the spirit it's intended. I'm curious to learn just how appealing a move to Pentax is to you?

Birdseed

If you have a tiny share, even with similar features, you need to *buy* market share. This happens primarily in one of two ways:

1) Offer significantly more/better features at the same price point as your competitors.

2) Offer the same feature set at greatly reduced prices.

Even if you provide great cost/value, you need to convince users that your product is better. You need to sponsor some professionals to publicly switch to your platform and show tangible proof that the platform is viable. You also need to find some way to make it easy for people to switch to your platform.

When a company (or small set of companies) achieves dominance in a market it is virtually impossible for an outsider to dislodge it. There are really only two things that will destroy the dominant company: either it will make a silly mistake and kill itself or a new world order will kill the market.

In the airline industry the changed world order was deregulation, for example. In the pocket camera industry the changed world order is the smart phone.

As Pentax is producing different flavours of what Canon and Nikon produce there's no change of world order for it to exploit there; and an external change will hit Pentax harder than C and N.

A big part of the problem is that a huge number of people buy familiar names; if their friends or family use C or N gear they are far more likely to follow than to try a rarer breed. Pentax spent several years offering far better value for money and made no dent; then moved closer to price parity and is now back on the first model.

I would be delighted to be proved wrong; but I can't see any way for Pentax to break the Canon/Nikon duopoly unless one of them commits commercial suicide.

Pentax needs a time machine.

I don't know what their market share was, but back in the film-SLR era they were a visible mainstream camera brand. Since then, they have had multiple owners, and have withered into comparative obscurity.

I don't see a way back.

Why do they need to be a third force in photography?

Why can't they just make amazing cameras and offer them at very reasonable prices?

If they keep doing that, then the user base will grow.

I think the WR angle on their cameras is a good one to take.

I originally got into dSLR cameras with a Pentax K100d, but use Nikon now, but I keep thinking about picking up a Pentax K-50 or K-S2 because of the WR bodies and lenses.

It would make a great camera to take camping with me.

And . . . if I am out shooting for someone and I get into a situation where I am in rain / snow or wadding out into a lake to get a shot (all of which I have found myself in) I'd prefer taking a WR camera with a WR lens.

Take care & Happy Shooting!

I favor Pentax too; have since my beginning in about 1995. The optics are world class, and so's their build quality.

They obviously don't have the budget in their optics dept, but the partnership with Tamron will help remedy that.

I think the vast majority of photographers are already well-served by Pentax optics. It's that last 2% who need (or perceive the need) the 400 mm f/2.8.

Once they start to sell enough to get aftermarket support from Sigma, Tokina, and the Chinese brands, they'll be golden.

I also think they need to keep marching to the beat of their own drum. Canon and Nikon are there exchanging blows for the top spot. Sony is sneaking up on them, with their superior electronics and Zeiss optics. Pentax would have to get to 4th place before they can think of third.

Another strategy that might work is to convince the amateur/hobbyist market that they're better served by Pentax than the pro brands. Amateurs just have different needs, even if they need some help to realize it. (Kind of like Olympus and Panasonic have done with m4/3)

They also need to better support their unique products, like the Q system and MX-1 compact, instead of abandoning them to join the full frame war.

If they want to become 3rd force, they simply have to fix 1 basic thing. That is autofocus. They have to match or exceed C and N autofocus.

Good players skate to where the puck is, great players skate to where the puck will be.

TacticDesigns said:

Why do they need to be a third force in photography?

Click to expand...

Ricoh sees it as a need; I think it's their stated aim to do so.

TacticDesigns said:

Why can't they just make amazing cameras and offer them at very reasonable prices?

Click to expand...

Because that doesn't generate enough profit.

TacticDesigns said:

If they keep doing that, then the user base will grow.

Click to expand...

But, at least so far, nowhere near fast enough.

They can not. They made the choice ten years ago and now it is too late.

This is how sample photos from their website looks like. Pentax is a joke.



















--
" Use the shutter button on the headset cord " - Leonardo Da Vinci

Full frame is the rite step. Pentax`s full frame does look good with some really innovative fancy little functions.

Eg led, tilt screen, pixel shifting, crop mode.

1 innovative 3ed dial [very good idea]

But i hv to say they missed some fancy little things users look for [missed oppertunity] Eg usb 3.0, touch screen, 4k recording, more focus points.

But success of K1 will ultimately depends on autofocus accuracy. If they can come close to CaNikon autofocus we ve got a winner here.

The ME Super was my first dslr and I shot happily with it for many years. However, when it finally ground to a halt, I had a good look round (a bit harder then without the internet) and decided to move to Canon. I never saw a compelling reason to change (until I went m4/3, but that's another story).

There used to be a saying that nobody lost their job by buying IBM. I think the same is true, metaphorically, for Canon and Nikon. A new entrant will likely start with a "safe" choice (which will nowadays be a very capable camera), and once invested in lenses have no real incentive to change.

I think it is a real tough one for Pentax.

Dave

I agree with other comments in the thread that what Pentax need is a bigger market share. IMO Pentax basically lost it by being too late switching to digital. Today they have excellent cameras that are very competitive with Canon and Nikon models, maybe with the exception of AF (haven't tested this myself) and video.

Adding a full frame model might help a bit by providing a upgrade path, but that's also very late.

Unfortunately (strong competition from Pentax would be nice also for Canon and Nikon shooters) I can't see how Pentax can increase the market share significantly in the dSLR-market. They have a weak position and simply offering a bit better value than Canon and Nikon in some areas wont help much. Canon and Nikon has more complete systems, more support from third party manufactureres and are more likely to be around in a couple of years.

Sony already tried to compete when they "bought" the dSLR-division from Minolta. They wanted a solid third place, and failed (although Sony still claim that they support the A-mount). Olympus failed with the FT dSLRs and both Panasonic and Fuji also gave up on dSLRs.

All of these switched focus to mirrorless, and that could have been an option for Pentax too, but is probably too late now. At least with their own mount.

Pentax 645 might have a future, but medium format is a small market. They can (and should IMO) keep supporting existing customers with new K-mount cameras, but it's difficult to see a increased market share and long term profitability. Another option would be taking over Samsung's NX-business if Samsung really withdraw from the camera market.

I left Pentax when they refused to fix a new FA300mm f2.8 that wasn't sharp at longer distances (over about 30feet) after the second trip to colorado factory service, it came back in a box with no padding at all and an explanation that a film lens may not be sharp on digital. That did it for me, they are dead to me.

borno said:

I left Pentax when they refused to fix a new FA300mm f2.8 that wasn't sharp at longer distances (over about 30feet) after the second trip to colorado factory service, it came back in a box with no padding at all and an explanation that a film lens may not be sharp on digital. That did it for me, they are dead to me.

Click to expand...

I left Pentax when the light meter died...

Innovate like Sony to create a differentiation from Canikon.

Or slowly fade away.

--
http://www.ipernity.com/doc/i.kirk

Pentax equipment gets generally good reviews, and you often hear comments like "hits above its weight," which I think is a fair assessment.

They've gone through ownership changes, and perhaps now with some stability they can market more and get their stuff promoted more (I agree about the website photos posted above; geez).

But at this point I'd say just surviving as a part of Ricoh and being profitable should be the goal. Whether they beat out Panny, Oly, Sony, etc isn't as important as being a solid profitable niche player. They've got some ducks they need to get in a row before they raise their sights too high, to mix a metaphor.

birdseed said:

.
So if you were the CEO of Pentax what would it take to make you switch? What do you think they're doing well and what do they need to do better? Clearly if you have an extensive lens collection that weighs into the equation, but if you're a Canon/Nikon APS shooter you're bascially looking at binning your existing lenses anyway so are Pentax in the running for your money?

I hope fellow photographers will take this in the spirit it's intended. I'm curious to learn just how appealing a move to Pentax is to you?

Birdseed

Click to expand...

I shoot Pentax and I would say perhaps their biggest problem in expanding their market is that they seem to be very Japan focused - colorful options, the Q system, even the K-01 - all tailored to the Japanese market. Not that they shouldn't play to their strengths in that one market, but it's a big world and in the social media information age, people want to know that the people taking their money are listening to what they want. Pentax has a very poor presence in the U.S. For a time they had a Ned Bunnell as president, and I felt he did all he could to listen to Pentax users and offer ideas to Japan, even if they didn't take them into consideration. He is retired now, but still uses his account here and is an avid photographer.

Ricoh has been good so far to Pentax and perhaps they will get them to think beyond the land of the rising sun. Time will tell.

Svein Eriksen said:

All of these switched focus to mirrorless, and that could have been an option for Pentax too, but is probably too late now. At least with their own mount.

Pentax 645 might have a future, but medium format is a small market. They can (and should IMO) keep supporting existing customers with new K-mount cameras, but it's difficult to see a increased market share and long term profitability. Another option would be taking over Samsung's NX-business if Samsung really withdraw from the camera market.

Click to expand...

Pentax DOES have mirrorless, but most folks don't take it seriously (to their own loss). Their Q system is WONDERFUL; just a lot of fun to shoot with, lightweight, and inexpensive. Good enough IQ, for most folks, if they could only get past the spec sheets.

The 645... seems like a solution to a problem no one has.

Smaug01 said:

Svein Eriksen said:

Pentax 645 might have a future, but medium format is a small market.

Click to expand...

The 645... seems like a solution to a problem no one has.

Click to expand...

Ricoh is largely a copier company. One of the reasons it bought Pentax was to acquire the 645 as a rapid way of copying documents for archive purposes. If Pentax hadn't had the 645 at that time it's likely that Ricoh wouldn't have been interested and Pentax may have died.

And, of course, there are a lot of people (numerically, although a small proportion) who want MF but can't afford the enormous prices of the other makes.