Alex Sarbu
Forum Pro
Hmm... I'd say they can offer a size advantage, but won't necessarily do so:
Loading…
camerasize.com
Besides, bulk is mostly about lenses.
Alex
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
DSLR -- One less with Canon soon to be gone -- I really like the K3 III
- Thread starter breeze_of_wind
- Start date
Besides, bulk is mostly about lenses.
Alex
Assuming you aren't completely joking. Here's what doesn't make sense to me:
1. Ricoh has determined, for whatever reasons, that it's not profitable to make & release more glass.
2. Tamron (or whoever owns them) has determined it's not profitable to make more Pentax mount glass.
So, if Ricoh bought Tamron, why would they come up wit a different answer - that somehow it would now be profitable?
As a consumer, I get why Pentaxians would like this - but from a business perspective, it makes zero sense.
Hi John - this is the crux of the problem. You want Pentax to innovate but you want a low price point. In a receding market - and ILCs are a receding market, that simply doesn't happen. You sell less units, you need to have a higher margin per unit just to stay in the black. It's a bit different if you have a business with a broader offering and you can have loss leader products.
Absolutely agree on lenses. If Pentax is going to have any chance, it has to start up lens production and get back on track with updating the catalog. People who have been shooting Pentax for 30 years may be fine with 30 year old lens design, but new consumers want more up to date products.
Jon Schick
Veteran Member
Sadly, I tend to concur.
The caveat would be that, if a lens stream augmented by Tamron would increase Pentax body sales, then it really doesn't need to be profitable in itself, just break-even. That would still be a win overall.
Against that synergy, however, is the other stark reality: while a lens-maker can save money by offering the same essential glass design for multiple mounts, there isn't much (any) overlap between DSLR lens designs and ML lens designs--the registration parameter differences are just too large. So design effort achieves no synergy regardless of who does the designing.
Passing or sharing DSLR design expertise to/from/with Tamron, then, isn't going to make designing DSLR lenses any cheaper. While we commonly say that Tamron and Sigma stopped supporting Pentax, the harsher reality is that they stopped supporting DSLR design entirely.
--
bob5050
All pictures I post here are SOOC, downsized 50% unless specifically identified otherwise.
Last edited:
yes, that's certainly part of it. A big part of manufacturing is maximizing your machines/processes. It's why Tamron and others abandoned Pentax lenses to begin with - each mount adds cost in R&D.
When running a line, I presume there's a change-over cost to switch from one mount to another as well.
When running manufacturing you want to get as close to your max capacity. In simple terms, if you have one process station to make a lens (not reality, but for a simple concept it helps) and that station has capacity of 1,000 units per day without a change-over and a change-over results in a reduction of 400 units.
So, if you have the demand, you definitely want to produce the 1000 per day. You want to do minimum switchovers, so you don't incur that 400 unit penalty. You certainly don't want to do the switchover to Pentax if you only have demand for 300 units if you can keep producing Nikon lenses and make/sell 1000 of them. And this is simply the manufacturing process cost - not materials, R&D etc.
Eventually, if you have enough demand you start increasing capacity - but that's capital investment in new equipment usually. So, there has to be a pretty big pay back.
As you mention, part of the benefit to the Tamron, Sigma model is - a good portion of the materials, R&D and manufacturing process for a lens is common across all mounts. So, it's not as expensive to offer multiple mounts. But, the scenario I described above still comes into play for part of the process - building the mounts and presumably attaching them. Even before mirrorless, Sigma, Tamron etc stopped producing K-mount because they had enough demand from other mounts such that they didn't have unused capacity in their manufacturing stations. Or not enough unused to offset the added cost of adding K-mount to the equation.
If Ricoh was going to buy that manufacturing capacity, it makes zero business sense to under-utilize it to focus on K-mount. Pentax buys wouldn't make up for the lost Canon, Nikon, Sony sales.
Now, as you say, the problem is even worse for K-mount. Now, you lose the design, parts and manufacturing synergies because the other 90% of the lens is different to. But, it was this way before mirrorless because the demand for new K-mount lenses just wasn't high enough. It's a tough nut for Ricoh to be sure. They need new lenses but the core of their user base loves buying used and continuing to use 20 year old lenses.
Alex Sarbu
Forum Pro
Yes, I do think it is the right word, that's why I used it.do you really think that the word "competed" is the right one?
I'm not sure of your experience with Pentax cameras; but I used or at least tested all "digital" generations, and film before that - and I was able to compare with the competition. Do you know that for a brief period Pentax had the best low-light AF?
Alex
Alex Sarbu
Forum Pro
Well, a different scenario would be Ricoh expanding their lens production capabilities by M&A - which doesn't make sense either.
It makes no sense to me either. Every yen put in acquiring Tamron would be better directly invested in Ricoh Imaging.
Alex
Alex Sarbu
Forum Pro
Buying Tamron would most likely be way more expensive than developing the few interesting Tamron lenses from scratch, or rebadging existing Tamron lenses, even with tasking Tamron to design some new ones.
Alex
Alex Sarbu
Forum Pro
You are absolutely right, of course.Sorry, but I don't follow this logic? If Pentax had issued the K-3iii in anything other than Pentax K-mount, I would have ditched all my Pentax gear and bought a Canon or Nikon DSLR or, if I had to, an Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark III... and all of the necessary lenses for that camera. How does that help Pentax sales?I suspect option 2 is the most likely. Many people will have bought into Canon and Nikon with brand loyalty just like people here have with Pentax, so I suspect the vast majority will move to their increasingly excellent mirrorless offerings which gives them an experience which allows an easy transition from what they're used to. There are plenty of posters in this forum who would have done the same if Pentax had also gone down the mirrorless route so it's not all about the OVF. And Pentax might do quite nicely as a niche player with some unique features and capabilities for those who care.In that case there are three possibilities.
In scenario 2 Pentax have to sustain its own eco system 100%. No third party manufacturers will be interested. Everything will be slow and small. Maybe Pentax then finds its zen balance and manages to refine the thoughts they now have of specialty cameras. Cameras for astro or IR photography or whatnot. Or maybe it will just be a boring alternative for DSLR nerds
- Pentax grows and becomes a significant player.
- Pentax do not grow, becomes even more niche than today.
- Pentax dwindles and dies.
Scenario 1 is more interesting. Here things can happen. I have no idea what really. It is, of course, based on Pentax being able to produce some essential value. And what is the value of DSLR? Here are some examples
But not only that. You also get Pentax quality and inventiveness and dedication to the users. Think, astro tracer without GPS. Would any one else even care? Think the discussion Pentax now have with users, even considering such crazy ideas like a manual focus camera. Maybe not realistic, but at least it is up to discussion.
- A passive finder that does not need power.
- A finder totally without delay.
- A finder where the image is totally optical, showing reality.
- A finder where you can easily track moving things.
- A sensor that is more protected when changing lens.
- Lots of old DSLR lenses with 100% compatibility.
And I think your final bullet is both Pentax's greatest strength and biggest weakness. A strength for people who love continuing to use all the legacy lenses. A weakness because Pentax have to work much harder to generate revenue from new lens sales which would have been easier if they'd forced the issue with a change of mount (like Canon for example).
It's not like forcing your users to migrate can't possibly work; it can. But it's tremendously expensive, you need to offer stuff which is feature-by-feature competitive with the others' best, you need tons of lenses, and you need it fast. And you can still fail - grabbing market share, building a product line but never recovering the investment.
Olympus' failure wasn't in not trying; they tried hard, had some very neat performance features, yet their mirrorless line kept making loses.
And the worst mistake to make here is to believe people told to leave their current mount would automatically leave for your new-and-shiny mount. A Pentax mirrorless line would be the least developed, and the slowest developing on the market.
Alex
Alex Sarbu
Forum Pro
Samsung was early; so was Olympus.
Going mirrorless is a "succeed or die" thing. The only certainty in this is that Pentax would lose their current users - and to get them back, they'd have to fight with everyone else. Without any USP (like the optical viewfinder).
Perhaps it's not about being "too late", but refusing to play a game they'd lose.
Alex
RBIV
Senior Member
I'd say that's a big percentage of it, and I believe (with no proof whatsoever) that there are several up in Nikon that are resistant to abandoning their dslr line too soon.
Jon Schick
Veteran Member
Alex Sarbu
Forum Pro
I understand the reasoning: well corrected lenses made for future cameras with impressive resolution.
I've seen the D FA* 85mm f/1.4. Mighty impressive! But I cannot think of a way that lens isn't overkill for me.
Adapters are a trap; they get you to start buying into a system thinking it would be cheaper, but in the end you'll end up replacing all your lenses - and buying more.
Alex
breeze_of_wind
Senior Member
If this is all true, and your presentation is quite impressive, that leaves Pentax needing to make decisions around lenses to release. The release should either bring superior quality or a unique focal length. Without one or both your read of the Pentax installed base is that they will be driven by price and if there is a good or acceptable old product it will be the one purchased.
John
Roland Karlsson
Forum Pro
Absolutely.
The thing is that it does not seem like business works that way. It is not based on simple economical calculus and rational reasons.
And I think there are three problems.
- Priorities.
- Internal allocation of resources.
- Hard to find money to buy things externally.
It is also my experience that it is almost impossible to allocate resources internally. Everyone holds on to the resources they have. No resources are free.
And one way to circumvent all the blockers above is to simply buy a company that makes the stuff. Then there are resources and the topmost priority for the bought company is to make what you want.
In a perfect world, it would be. The problem every company faces is they lack that data. Costs can be calculated, but the benefits are very often ambiguous.
In my experience, the issue in a large corporation is the VPs cannot agree on what those priorities are. And, in fact, the priorities may compete against one another - depending on how business goals for different units are identified. If you and I were VPs for a company you might say the priorites are A, B then C. I might say they're D, C, F.
That I haven't seen. A business unit having the capital to buy a company to move forward with their objectives. I mean if all of imaging were aligned on priorities, you don't run into the above scenario except when you have a lack of capital. So, having a larger initial capital outlay with a much larger ROI (i.e. 7 year payback instead of say 2) doesn't make any sense - not for a successful company.
If you're going to buy manufacturing capacity you do so because you need all that capacity and it's cheaper than growing your own. If there was enough demand for K-mount lenses , Tamron would be producing them.
If Ricoh were going to buy Tamron it would be to produce lenses for other makers - there's more demand for them.
If Tamron were a smaller operation then the idea would make more sense.
henricoo
Forum Enthusiast
Life line still is the K mount and those zillion K mount lenses. A K-mount MILC FF K2 and APSC K4 with a good EVF and all the advantages of on-sensor technology besides the dslr lines is the way to go. It results in a bit fatter MIlC but so what? Look at the R3 generation. The extra space can be used for unique functionallity...
Roland Karlsson
Forum Pro
I "kind of" agree with you.
But, it will never happen. For several good and bad reasons.
Now you are again dividing your resources. One thing every manufacturer seems to agree on: 100% milc or 100% DSLR. In a declining market it doesn't make sense to do both. I also suspect that to get the focus benefits MiLC offers they'd need new motors anyway. So, you end up hobbling your furture just to keep that backward compatibility.
Unless you're suggesting to abandon DSLR, which has been argued makes no sense either because Pentax is behind everyone else in MILC development.
Like it or not, I think Pentax has to stay all-in on DSLR.
Similar threads
- Make Photography Great Again
- Buying Advice
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum