Pentax: "Amateur" product means more value, less dealer margins?

[bcooter]

I just think the Pentax is a small threat to Canon and Nikon makers, won't make a spittin' difference to blad and phase at least not for people that make money with cameras.

Could be wrong, but if it was in such hot demand they'd be selling em all over the world right now.

BC

[feppe]

I just think the Pentax is a small threat to Canon and Nikon makers, won't make a spittin' difference to blad and phase at least not for people that make money with cameras.

Could be wrong, but if it was in such hot demand they'd be selling em all over the world right now.

While I think you're right on Pentax not posing an immediate threat to the incumbents, hot demand for a product doesn't mean the producer necessarily has the manufacturing capacity to meet that demand. Even Nikon and Canon have troubles meeting demand on some of their hotter cameras from time to time.

[bcooter]

While I think you're right on Pentax not posing an immediate threat to the incumbents, hot demand for a product doesn't mean the producer necessarily has the manufacturing capacity to meet that demand. Even Nikon and Canon have troubles meeting demand on some of their hotter cameras from time to time.

You might be right, but if the Pentax really could grab a share of the high end market, the holiday period is the time to hit it hard.

Most "serious" amateurs love to give themselves a present.

Most professionals have a few weeks of downtime and if your gonna add, change, upgrade a system, this is exactly the time to do it.

None of us really know the Pentax plan, even if there is a plan.  Will they have a strong presence in the western world,or  is like that Devlin guy says the only markets that matter are emerging economies? . . . once again who knows?

Either way, they sure as hell missed a big selling season.

The thing is I don't see anybody with medium format switching, just because they already have such a heavy investment in their current equipment and Phase/Leaf, Hasselblad keep improving their software to the point it probably would take Pentax 2 years to play catch up.

Just a thought.

BC

[fredjeang]

The thing is I don't see anybody with medium format switching, just because they already have such a heavy investment in their current equipment and Phase/Leaf, Hasselblad keep improving their software to the point it probably would take Pentax 2 years to play catch up.

Just a thought.

BC

I don't see such a thing either.
This Pentax is rather to attract new MF users and it is already to a price that it's not just like a fancy gift.

The integrated back will immediatly discard many potential buyers, and IMO many questions have not yet been answered. The lcd has been applauded, but is it really the end of tethering slavery?, how accurate is the focusing with that Pentax? Reviewers said that it is reliable, but as always, landscapes and facades are not giving harsh time to the focussing. I'd like to see a proper fashion shooting with this camera and that could be another story. Yes I know that some said that this Pentax is targeting landscapers, but...a MF camera for landscape? is that really a plan for Pentax executives?

Nothing about software. This is gona be the rather good (but amateur) silkypix Pentax provided in their consumer line? That wouldn't be serious, no?

At this point, investing 10000 euros minimum in a camera without knowing exactly the lenses line time table, software and studio tethering, is that a cheap operation?

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

The film version of the Pentax 645 was very popular among landscape shooters. So there are probably a lot of Pentax lenses laying around wardrobes. The landscape photographers are perhaps not "pros" in the sense you mean, doing a lot of high value productions, but many are not pure amateurs either. Many photographers are selling art. Those photographers have different needs.

There are few photographers using digital backs on Contax 645, as far as I know. Pretty sure Contax does not have the infrastructure like Hasselblad, but it seems that it's still quite useful to pros!

I guess that Pentax's plan is not to dominate the world but to earn some decent money. They have done it with the 67, the 645 and hopefully will do with 645D.

Best regards
Erik

Ps. Thank's a lot for your postings, always a good read!

You might be right, but if the Pentax really could grab a share of the high end market, the holiday period is the time to hit it hard.

Most "serious" amateurs love to give themselves a present.

Most professionals have a few weeks of downtime and if your gonna add, change, upgrade a system, this is exactly the time to do it.

None of us really know the Pentax plan, even if there is a plan.  Will they have a strong presence in the western world,or  is like that Devlin guy says the only markets that matter are emerging economies? . . . once again who knows?

Either way, they sure as hell missed a big selling season.

The thing is I don't see anybody with medium format switching, just because they already have such a heavy investment in their current equipment and Phase/Leaf, Hasselblad keep improving their software to the point it probably would take Pentax 2 years to play catch up.

Just a thought.

BC

[ndevlin]

Pentax knows what they are doing with this camera: it is targeted at (i) new entrants to MF digital; (ii) principally outdoor shooters; and (iii) people with Pentax MF legacy systems.

It's their substitute/answer for a FF 35mm system, which would not have been competitive with the Canonikons, due to their small overall market share.  It probably cost a similar amount to bring the 645D to market as it would have to do a "me too" 35 FF system that would have been price-squeezed between the A900 and the 5DII.

Pentax is not going after 'Cooter, or anyone else making their living shooting anything but travel/landscape/etc. 

Ironically, the 645D seems to be a very proficient studio camera. It generates gorgeous files, and focuses as well as any other MF system. I did a quasi-tethered shoot for fun using an eye-fi card (small jpegs to LR and RAW on the 2nd card) and, while it's a bit half-assed compared to proper FW800 tethering, it worked surprisingly well. More on this in a future article) 

Also, I actually think it would give a lot of other systems a run for their money on, say, a fashion show (though why you wouldn't use a D3x for that escapes me). 

That said, Pentax is going after a specific market, and has given them a very competitive and attractive product which has significant advantages (price, ergonomics, weather sealing, lens weight, etc.) over all of its rivals in its core target applications.

Phasy and Hassy have to be nervous because everyone in their core "pro" markets already own DBs, and have no reason to upgrade to newer or higher MP count DBs. The line-up of pros waiting to upgrade their 40MP backs to 80MP backs will form in the phonebooth to my left. Pros with existing Phase and Hassy systems are asking themselves how they'r going to deal with convergence, not whether they need a 200MB RAW file...

Phasy and Hassy's cameras still kind of suck ass, so they're not selling new cameras, either.  So what's their market for new users?? Pros who enter the studio-shooting world, sure. But in North America and Europe, it has to be mostly the rich amateurs.  What do rich amateurs shoot? Do they tether a lot? Do they travel? Do they do landscape? Do they like really heavy systems? Do they like a camera that's as user-friendly as their prosumer dslr? Hmm.

That's why I think the BRIC countries are key for Phase and Hassy's survival.  If they can sell growing pro and rich amateur markets there on their 'brand value', they're golden for a bunch more years. If not, I think they're in trouble.

Fun times.

- N.
 

[BJL]

BJL, yes Canon they have been announcing/showing samples of unusually large sensors. Here is a 20x20 cm link.

Ah yes: I had forgotten that sensor design, apparently for large telescopes: hardly a MF (or LF) contender though, especially as it has only about 8MP, going by the "100x" sensitivity claim.

[pcunite]

Ah yes: I had forgotten that sensor design, apparently for large telescopes: hardly a MF (or LF) contender though, especially as it has only about 8MP, going by the "100x" sensitivity claim.

They also just recently made a 120mp APS-H sensor.

[BernardLanguillier]

Another thing that comes into my mind about that Pentax magical properties that suddenly amazes all the planet, is the cheap factor. Or accesibility. It can indeed be applaude but you know, we are living in a system that cheap is rarely going with quality. There are some exceptions certainly but they are the exceptions that confirm the rule.

True, but 10.000 US$ is not cheap by any means. It is already an amazingly expensive camera. These prices show their ugly face most in no inflation markets like Japan where the price of bread/rice has remained the same for 15 years while equivalent cameras have become 3 times pricier. Small format players have been just as guilty here.

Even in relative terms, you can still buy a car for that amount of cash. A decent one new and an amazing one second hand (a like new 5 years old BMW 3 series for instance).

What should be amazing the planet is how much more expensive the other guys are. The main reasons they could get away with it is a genius sales trick comparing the price to the previous expenditures on film, the provision of a quality service to technology unaware senior photographers and some smart marketing focused on influencers.

The gap between parts cost and end user price is just too high to remain sustainable in such a mature technology market. Pentax is showing us that there is simply little rationale for these kind of margins in the digital era. Pentax doesn't address yet the most niche applications like tethered shooting? Those who believe that Pentax doesn't have the means to implement good tethered shooting should stop fooling themselves. As soon as they have enough users in NA/EMEA they will become serious about it and we will get a stable and fast tethered shooting in the next generation of the camera using the fastest Firewire/USB3.0/lightpeak interface available or even wifi. They will work with Adobe on LR's improvement - they will love to have a partner in this segment... bandwidth will obviously be sensor limited in next gen MF devices.

My ignorant view is that the only ways to grow for Phase and Hassy is IMHO to either go for lower prices/higher volumes while shifting their business model more towards services by tuning their deal with VARs (increase the price of support and keep some margin for themselves for instance). That could work if their VARs can really bring added value instead of being a way to compensate for sub-par quality/ease of use. There is a huge opportunity here for top players like Capture Integration and it would result in a much healthier market where people pay themselves for what they get/need.

I believe that many photographers would fall for a 15.000 US$ version of the P65+ with an optional 5.000 US$ a year support contract.

But, what do I know?

Cheers,
Bernard

[eronald]

What should be amazing the planet is how much more expensive the other guys are.

There is a huge opportunity here for top players like Capture Integration and it would result in a much healthier market where people pay themselves for what they get/need.

Cheers,
Bernard

I beg to differ. I think the MF dealers are going to see their profit stripped as H and P lower prices by looting the dealer margins. CI may make it because they are smart guys, but I wouldnt' count on it.

On the other hand there would certainly be a market now for people capable of selling into the emerging digital cine accessory and postprod market - my feeling is every major city is going to have at least one dealer specializing in computer configurations for cine shooters.Look at he Red forum, and you can see that the computer stuff is above most of the cine guys ability to set up and configure, while it is the biggest bottleneck during production.

Edmund

[bcooter]

I beg to differ. I think the MF dealers are going to see their profit stripped as H and P lower prices by looting the dealer margins. CI may make it because they are smart guys, but I wouldnt' count on it.

On the other hand there would certainly be a market now for people capable of selling into the emerging digital cine accessory and postprod market - my feeling is every major city is going to have at least one dealer specializing in computer configurations for cine shooters.Look at he Red forum, and you can see that the computer stuff is above most of the cine guys ability to set up and configure, while it is the biggest bottleneck during production.

Edmund

We've all had these discussions about camera prices for years.  Especially medium format and I doubt seriously if any camera maker, large or small really knows exactly what their going to be offering or at what price in the next few years.

It seems like high end cameras are at a standstill, the Pentax included.    Even the canon rumors are all about the next next 5d.  You hear nothing of substance about the next 1ds or the next Nikon, at least the next expensive Nikon.

The thing is none of us can make a camera maker do anything.  If we could Phase would have had a 5" high def lcd by now and Hasselblad would have a mirror image of C-1.

The RED and it's prices are somewhat of an anomaly, because it's the only high def raw shooting, motion camera that is somewhat affordable.  RED is also owned by one very rich guy so if it makes a lot of money or not really [robably isn't his biggest concern.  His concern is covering the market, which he may well do.

Even with that the rumors are RED has sold 10,000 RED Ones and since I would imagine the average RED buyer spends at least 40 to 50k at RED, that totals 400 to 500 million bucks.  

That's a lot of bread and none of it goes to dealers.  It's all heads to RED and there is still a waiting line for about 1/2 of what RED sells.


BC


P.S.  In regards to post production in the digital cinema world, there are a lot of companies that will configure anything you want.  Promax one of the best known.  The thing is as an on set image maker do you want to be that guy, the editor, colorists, matte painter, effects guy/girl, because if you do then you don't need a RED you need to rent a suite in North Hollywood and close the blinds, crank up the espresso and prepare for 4pm to 6am working days.

Even then very good effects companies like Asylum, http://www.asylumfx.com/index/index  just went out of business (and they had a lot of on going projects in house), most high profile.

They just couldn't compete with countries like Canada and England that subsidized production or come in at the numbers India was charging.

In LA today there are blocks and blocks of closed editorial and effects houses.    The work is there, the numbers aren't profitable.

IMO

BC

[eronald]

That's a lot of bread and none of it goes to dealers.  It's all heads to RED and there is still a waiting line for about 1/2 of what RED sells.

BC

I was reading through the Red forum, looking at the enthusiasm some of the best people in the field are displaying about the imagery. Maybe their hardware is really improving faster than ours, maybe their software is getting better faster than Photoshop, and is more fun to do things with, maybe their budgets are still larger, or maybe actresses are more user-friendly after hours than models, but in any case there is a definite upbeat on their forum while we seem to be debating the fine points of taxidermy. Upbeat while you say the postprod houses are going bust - hmmm.

Edmund

[Rob C]

They just couldn't compete with countries like Canada and England that subsidized production or come in at the numbers India was charging.

In LA today there are blocks and blocks of closed editorial and effects houses.    The work is there, the numbers aren't profitable.

IMO

BC

I'm surprised to read that Britain is subsidising anything; it's almost broke!

As for the numbers being there but not profitable ones, that's probably much the same as with normal (not Nina Ricci et al) stills shooting. Look at stock: zillions of images available, zillions being used, and who's making money? The wheel has to stop turning at those revs or it's going to disintegrate completely or, as bad, just stop. I posted a 'contributions advice' from a magazine in the business section here, that strikes me as part of the malaise all photographers face: they are entirely open and vulnerable to extortion. Why? Because there are those who will submit just for the imagined glory of seeing themselves in print.

Rob C

[archivue]

a pentax 645D can't be used on a technical camera... so it won't affect leaf, phane 1, and Hassy in that market...

i'm shure, it will affects more D3X sales !

[John R Smith]

True, but 10.000 US$ is not cheap by any means. It is already an amazingly expensive camera. These prices show their ugly face most in no inflation markets like Japan where the price of bread/rice has remained the same for 15 years while equivalent cameras have become 3 times pricier. Small format players have been just as guilty here.

Even in relative terms, you can still buy a car for that amount of cash. A decent one new and an amazing one second hand (a like new 5 years old BMW 3 series for instance).

What should be amazing the planet is how much more expensive the other guys are. The main reasons they could get away with it is a genius sales trick comparing the price to the previous expenditures on film, the provision of a quality service to technology unaware senior photographers and some smart marketing focused on influencers.

Bernard

Yessir. Back in 1983 I bought a Yashicamat 124G (as a backup) for £65 which was in mint condition and produced MF negatives which were every bit as good in quality as my Rollei 2.8 or a Hasselblad of the period. Even new it would only have been about £150. The cost of MF photography now is simply outrageous by comparison, and eventually the market will collapse.

John

[ndevlin]

Yessir. Back in 1983 I bought a Yashicamat 124G (as a backup) for £65 which was in mint condition and produced MF negatives which were every bit as good in quality as my Rollei 2.8 or a Hasselblad of the period. Even new it would only have been about £150. The cost of MF photography now is simply outrageous by comparison, and eventually the market will collapse.
John

Beg to differ.  Assuming a very modest 100 rolls per year at very modest prices, and without factoring in the cost of time for trips to and from the lab (add another $50-100/hr minimum):

20 x 120 PP @$20 + tax  = $ 452

Processing (@$6/roll)      = $ 678

Proof scan CD ($10/roll)  = $1,130

Hi-res scans of the best   = $1,469
20 shoots ($65 per)

Total                                = $3,729

Even if you take out the proof-scans (foolish) you'd be looking at $2,600 a year for a very minimal level of photography.  This volume of film could easily be doubled for most serious (non-pro) shooters.  This makes the $2,000 - 2,500 a year it costs to own the camera look downright reasonable.  

- N.

[feppe]

True, but 10.000 US$ is not cheap by any means. It is already an amazingly expensive camera. These prices show their ugly face most in no inflation markets like Japan where the price of bread/rice has remained the same for 15 years while equivalent cameras have become 3 times pricier. Small format players have been just as guilty here.

Even in relative terms, you can still buy a car for that amount of cash. A decent one new and an amazing one second hand (a like new 5 years old BMW 3 series for instance).

I really don't like arguing about analogies, but that's not a fair comparison. Amazing 5-year-old second-hand BMW 3 Series has pretty much exactly the same performance as the same recent model, while a top-end camera would have twice the megapixels, stops higher DR and tonal range, and video. So it might be true that you're paying relatively more for the camera, but the tech has advanced far more.

Agree fully that the money (margin) is in services, not hardware, though.

[Rob C]

I really don't like arguing about analogies, but that's not a fair comparison. Amazing 5-year-old second-hand BMW 3 Series has pretty much exactly the same performance as the same recent model, while a top-end camera would have twice the megapixels, stops higher DR and tonal range, and video. So it might be true that you're paying relatively more for the camera, but the tech has advanced far more.

Agree fully that the money (margin) is in services, not hardware, though.

Cars are always a bad comparison with anything else. Even with each other. Worse, is the lure of the second-hand. You buy that 5-year-old lux/hot chariot and what? What is that you discover that if you couldn't afford it new, you sure as hell can't afford it used! It's like boats, to make another false analogy: before we bought here I'd dragged my better-half to boat shows to look at things 'worth' the price of our house. So, I could have bought one that would have given a life of mobility (ha effin' ha!), nice aft cabin, plenty of sail or engine, but then... then, I'd have gone bust with maintenance and marina dues. Never truer than if you have to ask the price you can't afford it.

Where do snappers find themselves with running MF digii - any different a persepctive about needing to ask the price?

Rob C

[bcooter]

Beg to differ.  Assuming a very modest 100 rolls per year at very modest prices, and without factoring in the cost of time for trips to and from the lab (add another $50-100/hr minimum):
snip
Total                                = $3,729


- N.

There is no comparing film to digital.  For one, films as dead as Zed, at least in the world of commerce.  Secondly film was cheap compared to professional digital production.  Film didn't require multiple computers, dozens of software packages, plug ins, monitors, monitor calibrators, 4 cloud servers, 300 terabytes of backed up storage space and a laptop/ipad/iphone stuck to your side for 99.999% of all waking moments.

The argument that digital is cheaper probably works for people like my dad that only sends out twelve snaps a year through his computer and rarely prints an image.

____________________

Rob,

Don't do the doom and gloom over post production and the link I posted to Asylum.   Yes they went under, but none of us know the real reason because none of us are their accounting firm.  They could have taken high executive salaries, been overleveraged on rental space, could have just underbid.  None of us know.

What I do know is that good work is still produced, not every photographer that earns his/her living does it with a $300 camera and if your working... your going forward, not holding or clinging to yesterday.

90% of what is going on today is not an end of communications, advertising or well paid professionals, it's just that the whole world's business climate is a mess and until that clears up, every industry will do a lot of soul searching.

IMO

BC

[ndevlin]

There is no comparing film to digital.  For one, films as dead as Zed, at least in the world of commerce.  Secondly film was cheap compared to professional digital production.  Film didn't require multiple computers, dozens of software packages, plug ins, monitors, monitor calibrators, 4 cloud servers, 300 terabytes of backed up storage space and a laptop/ipad/iphone stuck to your side for 99.999% of all waking moments.

The argument that digital is cheaper probably works for people like my dad that only sends out twelve snaps a year through his computer and rarely prints an image.

Don't disagree at all, but the original point was made viz. amateur users, who wax romantically on the good old days of 'cheaper' photography. For pros, whether you can make money at it is, I imagine, largely a question of an intelligent billing model, and whether some idiot who hasn't costed his overhead properly will undercut you. Of course, that kind of competition doesn't last long, but there's  probably an inexhaustible supply of those guys in many markets. The same people who allow micro-stock to exist. l

The culture of constant connectedness and the expectation of instantaneous response pervades virtually every field nowadys, and has improved none of them.  Litigation today takes three times as long and costs ten times as much, but god help you if the client call at 1:15 am doesn't get answered. Doesn't make us better as human beings or artists, that's for sure.

- N.