Is Pentax 645 going to become a difficult camera to get?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Jun 8, 2010.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    RichA, Jun 8, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    Me Guest

    On 8/06/2010 12:54 p.m., RichA wrote:
    > Seems like it might. $10k, 40 megapixels (MUCH cheaper than the
    > competition) and the camera itself is really nice to use. But,
    > perhaps Pentax doesn't have the production capability to meet demand,
    > or maybe there aren't enough sensors to make the numbers of these
    > they'd like to?
    >
    > http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Pentax_645D_comes_to_Europe_update_515pm_news_298886.html
    >

    Perhaps they just don't want to produce this in volume at the $10k price
    break because there isn't any money in it for them.
     
    Me, Jun 8, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    John A. Guest

    On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 15:45:50 +1200, Me <> wrote:

    >On 8/06/2010 12:54 p.m., RichA wrote:
    >> Seems like it might. $10k, 40 megapixels (MUCH cheaper than the
    >> competition) and the camera itself is really nice to use. But,
    >> perhaps Pentax doesn't have the production capability to meet demand,
    >> or maybe there aren't enough sensors to make the numbers of these
    >> they'd like to?
    >>
    >> http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Pentax_645D_comes_to_Europe_update_515pm_news_298886.html
    >>

    >Perhaps they just don't want to produce this in volume at the $10k price
    >break because there isn't any money in it for them.


    From what I've read, volume and the economies of scale is what they're
    counting on in order to make money on it.
     
    John A., Jun 8, 2010
    #3
  4. RichA

    Ray Fischer Guest

    RichA <> wrote:
    >Seems like it might. $10k,


    LOL!

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Jun 8, 2010
    #4
  5. RichA

    Me Guest

    On 8/06/2010 4:42 p.m., John A. wrote:
    > On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 15:45:50 +1200, Me<> wrote:
    >
    >> On 8/06/2010 12:54 p.m., RichA wrote:
    >>> Seems like it might. $10k, 40 megapixels (MUCH cheaper than the
    >>> competition) and the camera itself is really nice to use. But,
    >>> perhaps Pentax doesn't have the production capability to meet demand,
    >>> or maybe there aren't enough sensors to make the numbers of these
    >>> they'd like to?
    >>>
    >>> http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Pentax_645D_comes_to_Europe_update_515pm_news_298886.html
    >>>

    >> Perhaps they just don't want to produce this in volume at the $10k price
    >> break because there isn't any money in it for them.

    >
    > From what I've read, volume and the economies of scale is what they're
    > counting on in order to make money on it.

    It's off to a bad start then.
    I simply don't believe that demand will be high from "serious amateur"
    photogs, and it will be close to zero from existing professional/studio
    photographers who are already invested in other medium format digital gear.
    "The firm had planned to release the camera onto the Japanese market in
    May, but said it put back the launch until 11 June because orders
    exceeded supplies."
    There have been all sorts of demand-exceeds-supply problems with some of
    Nikon's pro tele lenses, but that never stopped them from "launching"
    the products.
    I think Pentax's excuse is pure BS.
    Hope I'm wrong - I wouldn't mind one, but certainly not at US$10k.
     
    Me, Jun 8, 2010
    #5
  6. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    On Mon, 7 Jun 2010 17:54:10 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    wrote:
    >Seems like it might. $10k, 40 megapixels (MUCH cheaper than the
    >competition) and the camera itself is really nice to use. But,
    >perhaps Pentax doesn't have the production capability to meet demand,
    >or maybe there aren't enough sensors to make the numbers of these
    >they'd like to?
    >
    >http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Pentax_645D_comes_to_Europe_update_515pm_news_298886.html



    Or, perhaps more likely, Pentax may have significantly underpriced the
    camera and could lose money on every one sold. But it is more likely
    that Kodak is unable to produce the sensors quickly enough.

    I took the precaution of buying several used Pentax 645 lenses at
    bargain prices in the hope of getting one of the 645D bodies, but
    there is no sign of it coming to Europe any time soon.
     
    Bruce, Jun 8, 2010
    #6
  7. RichA

    Peter Guest

    "Bruce" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    > Or, perhaps more likely, Pentax may have significantly underpriced the
    > camera and could lose money on every one sold. But it is more likely
    > that Kodak is unable to produce the sensors quickly enough.
    >
    > I took the precaution of buying several used Pentax 645 lenses at
    > bargain prices in the hope of getting one of the 645D bodies, but
    > there is no sign of it coming to Europe any time soon.
    >

    Cough, cough!


    --
    Peter
     
    Peter, Jun 8, 2010
    #7
  8. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Jun 8, 6:58 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    > On Mon, 7 Jun 2010 17:54:10 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >Seems like it might.  $10k, 40 megapixels (MUCH cheaper than the
    > >competition) and the camera itself is really nice to use.  But,
    > >perhaps Pentax doesn't have the production capability to meet demand,
    > >or maybe there aren't enough sensors to make the numbers of these
    > >they'd like to?

    >
    > >http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Pentax_645D_comes_to_Europe...

    >
    > Or, perhaps more likely, Pentax may have significantly underpriced the
    > camera and could lose money on every one sold.  But it is more likely
    > that Kodak is unable to produce the sensors quickly enough.
    >


    Seems like that is what killed their relationship with Olympus. Also,
    I don't think there is much economy of scale with the medium format
    sensors.
     
    RichA, Jun 8, 2010
    #8
  9. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 15:20:16 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    wrote:
    >On Jun 8, 6:58 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    >> On Mon, 7 Jun 2010 17:54:10 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >> >Seems like it might.  $10k, 40 megapixels (MUCH cheaper than the
    >> >competition) and the camera itself is really nice to use.  But,
    >> >perhaps Pentax doesn't have the production capability to meet demand,
    >> >or maybe there aren't enough sensors to make the numbers of these
    >> >they'd like to?

    >>
    >> >http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Pentax_645D_comes_to_Europe...

    >>
    >> Or, perhaps more likely, Pentax may have significantly underpriced the
    >> camera and could lose money on every one sold.  But it is more likely
    >> that Kodak is unable to produce the sensors quickly enough.
    >>

    >
    >Seems like that is what killed their relationship with Olympus.



    Kodak's relationship with Olympus foundered because Kodak were unable
    to produce decent sensors with more than 5 MP. After the excellence
    of the 5 MP sensor in the E-1, Kodak's 8 MP sensor for the Olympus
    E-300 was a huge disappointment.

    Kodak had made some very good prototype sensors, some of which I had
    the privilege to test, but they couldn't translate their performance
    into a sensor that could be produced in quantity.

    At that point Panasonic entered the fray and produced the sensors that
    saved Four Thirds from oblivion.


    >Also, I don't think there is much economy of scale with the medium format
    >sensors.



    The sensor in the Pentax 645D is used in other cameras and backs. But
    the difference is that the pricing of the Pentax 645D is very keen and
    therefore its sales figures would be likely to be higher by an order
    of magnitude.
     
    Bruce, Jun 9, 2010
    #9
  10. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 11:24:07 +0100, "No spam please"
    <> wrote:

    >"Me" <> wrote in message
    >news:hukoj7$in4$...
    >> On 8/06/2010 4:42 p.m., John A. wrote:
    >>> On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 15:45:50 +1200, Me<> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On 8/06/2010 12:54 p.m., RichA wrote:
    >>>>> Seems like it might. $10k, 40 megapixels (MUCH cheaper than the
    >>>>> competition) and the camera itself is really nice to use. But,
    >>>>> perhaps Pentax doesn't have the production capability to meet demand,
    >>>>> or maybe there aren't enough sensors to make the numbers of these
    >>>>> they'd like to?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Pentax_645D_comes_to_Europe_update_515pm_news_298886.html
    >>>>>

    >> "The firm had planned to release the camera onto the Japanese market in
    >> May, but said it put back the launch until 11 June because orders exceeded
    >> supplies."

    >
    >Anyone think of any other company that holds a product off the market
    >because there's too great a demand for it?



    A classic example is Apple, who held back the launch of the iPad in
    Europe because demand was too great.
     
    Bruce, Jun 11, 2010
    #10
  11. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 10:53:07 +0100, Bruce <> wrote:
    : On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 11:24:07 +0100, "No spam please"
    : <> wrote:
    :
    : >"Me" <> wrote in message
    : >news:hukoj7$in4$...
    : >> On 8/06/2010 4:42 p.m., John A. wrote:
    : >>> On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 15:45:50 +1200, Me<> wrote:
    : >>>
    : >>>> On 8/06/2010 12:54 p.m., RichA wrote:
    : >>>>> Seems like it might. $10k, 40 megapixels (MUCH cheaper than the
    : >>>>> competition) and the camera itself is really nice to use. But,
    : >>>>> perhaps Pentax doesn't have the production capability to meet demand,
    : >>>>> or maybe there aren't enough sensors to make the numbers of these
    : >>>>> they'd like to?
    : >>>>>
    : >>>>> http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Pentax_645D_comes_to_Europe_update_515pm_news_298886.html
    : >>>>>
    : >> "The firm had planned to release the camera onto the Japanese market in
    : >> May, but said it put back the launch until 11 June because orders exceeded
    : >> supplies."
    : >
    : >Anyone think of any other company that holds a product off the market
    : >because there's too great a demand for it?
    :
    :
    : A classic example is Apple, who held back the launch of the iPad in
    : Europe because demand was too great.

    Wasn't it that demand was so great in the U.S. that it made no sense to launch
    in Europe until they got caught up? If so, it's hardly analogous to Pentax not
    wanting to launch in Japan. Sounds to me as though Pentax has a manufacturing
    problem they fear will cost them big bucks (er, yen) if they don't solve it
    pre-launch.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jun 11, 2010
    #11
  12. RichA

    Peter Guest

    "Alfred Molon" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <hust5e$1bui$>, No spam please says...
    >> Anyone think of any other company that holds a product off the market
    >> because there's too great a demand for it?

    >
    > Not 100% sure, but I think that Porsche produces below demand to make
    > their cars more exclusive.
    > --



    That's not quite the same thing as Pentax production. The DeBeers and OPEC,
    etc. regulate production to keep prices high.

    BTW what is the basis for your comment about Porsche?

    --
    Peter
     
    Peter, Jun 11, 2010
    #12
  13. RichA

    Pete Guest

    On 2010-06-11 21:01:54 +0100, Alfred Molon said:

    > In article <hust5e$1bui$>, No spam please says...
    >> Anyone think of any other company that holds a product off the market
    >> because there's too great a demand for it?

    >
    > Not 100% sure, but I think that Porsche produces below demand to make
    > their cars more exclusive.


    Especially after their non-galvanized models fell apart with rust in
    damp climates.

    BMW used to be exclusive before their accountants took over. Didn't
    they buy Rover from the taxpayers in the UK then sell the crap back at
    much higher prices? If so, smart move.

    --
    Pete
     
    Pete, Jun 11, 2010
    #13
  14. RichA

    Peter Guest

    "Pete" <> wrote in message
    news:2010061121405452681-availableonrequest@aserverinvalid...

    > BMW used to be exclusive before their accountants took over. Didn't they
    > buy Rover from the taxpayers in the UK then sell the crap back at much
    > higher prices? If so, smart move.



    Remember the difference between a porcupine and a BMW.


    --
    Peter
     
    Peter, Jun 11, 2010
    #14
  15. RichA

    Me Guest

    On 12/06/2010 8:01 a.m., Alfred Molon wrote:
    > In article<hust5e$1bui$>, No spam please says...
    >> Anyone think of any other company that holds a product off the market
    >> because there's too great a demand for it?

    >
    > Not 100% sure, but I think that Porsche produces below demand to make
    > their cars more exclusive.
    >

    It's likely that cars have been produced by many mainstream makers in
    limited numbers and sold below cost (incl to recover development) for
    image branding reasons. Homologation specials for motorsport, and
    unique models (Honda NSX?) are probably treated as a marketing cost.
     
    Me, Jun 11, 2010
    #15
  16. RichA

    Pete Guest

    On 2010-06-11 21:52:01 +0100, Peter said:

    > "Pete" <> wrote in message
    > news:2010061121405452681-availableonrequest@aserverinvalid...
    >
    >> BMW used to be exclusive before their accountants took over. Didn't
    >> they buy Rover from the taxpayers in the UK then sell the crap back at
    >> much higher prices? If so, smart move.

    >
    >
    > Remember the difference between a porcupine and a BMW.


    Yes.

    --
    Pete
     
    Pete, Jun 11, 2010
    #16
  17. RichA

    Peter Guest

    "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
    news:2010061115534216807-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
    > On 2010-06-11 13:52:01 -0700, "Peter" <> said:
    >
    >> "Pete" <> wrote in message
    >> news:2010061121405452681-availableonrequest@aserverinvalid...
    >>
    >>> BMW used to be exclusive before their accountants took over. Didn't they
    >>> buy Rover from the taxpayers in the UK then sell the crap back at much
    >>> higher prices? If so, smart move.

    >>
    >>
    >> Remember the difference between a porcupine and a BMW.

    >
    > After a shave the porcupine could be cuddly.
    >



    Never herd of a Teddy porcupine before.

    --
    Peter
     
    Peter, Jun 12, 2010
    #17
  18. RichA

    John A. Guest

    On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 11:01:34 -0400, "Peter"
    <> wrote:

    >"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
    >news:2010061115534216807-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
    >> On 2010-06-11 13:52:01 -0700, "Peter" <> said:
    >>
    >>> "Pete" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:2010061121405452681-availableonrequest@aserverinvalid...
    >>>
    >>>> BMW used to be exclusive before their accountants took over. Didn't they
    >>>> buy Rover from the taxpayers in the UK then sell the crap back at much
    >>>> higher prices? If so, smart move.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Remember the difference between a porcupine and a BMW.

    >>
    >> After a shave the porcupine could be cuddly.
    >>

    >
    >
    >Never herd of a Teddy porcupine before.


    And you wouldn't want a porcupine in a teddy, even if it was shaved.
     
    John A., Jun 12, 2010
    #18
  19. RichA

    Peter Guest

    "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
    news:2010061209562250878-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
    > On 2010-06-12 09:51:47 -0700, John A. <> said:
    >
    >> On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 11:01:34 -0400, "Peter"
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
    >>> news:2010061115534216807-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
    >>>> On 2010-06-11 13:52:01 -0700, "Peter" <>
    >>>> said:
    >>>>
    >>>>> "Pete" <> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:2010061121405452681-availableonrequest@aserverinvalid...
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> BMW used to be exclusive before their accountants took over. Didn't
    >>>>>> they
    >>>>>> buy Rover from the taxpayers in the UK then sell the crap back at
    >>>>>> much
    >>>>>> higher prices? If so, smart move.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Remember the difference between a porcupine and a BMW.
    >>>>
    >>>> After a shave the porcupine could be cuddly.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Never herd of a Teddy porcupine before.

    >>
    >> And you wouldn't want a porcupine in a teddy, even if it was shaved.

    >
    > That is enough to make you bristle at the thought.
    >
    >



    Ouch

    --
    Peter
     
    Peter, Jun 12, 2010
    #19
  20. RichA

    krishnananda Guest

    In article <2010061209562250878-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
    Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    > On 2010-06-12 09:51:47 -0700, John A. <> said:
    >
    > > On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 11:01:34 -0400, "Peter"
    > > <> wrote:
    > >
    > >> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
    > >> news:2010061115534216807-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
    > >>> On 2010-06-11 13:52:01 -0700, "Peter" <> said:
    > >>>
    > >>>> "Pete" <> wrote in message
    > >>>> news:2010061121405452681-availableonrequest@aserverinvalid...
    > >>>>
    > >>>>> BMW used to be exclusive before their accountants took over. Didn't they
    > >>>>> buy Rover from the taxpayers in the UK then sell the crap back at much
    > >>>>> higher prices? If so, smart move.
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>> Remember the difference between a porcupine and a BMW.
    > >>>
    > >>> After a shave the porcupine could be cuddly.
    > >>>
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> Never herd of a Teddy porcupine before.

    > >
    > > And you wouldn't want a porcupine in a teddy, even if it was shaved.

    >
    > That is enough to make you bristle at the thought.


    Bristles is hawgs. Quills is porky-pines. Th' one makes a good
    paintbrush; th' other makes a good tattooing needle...
     
    krishnananda, Jun 13, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Alan Browne

    Re: New Mamiya 645 may influence DSLR prices

    Alan Browne, Sep 29, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    46
    Views:
    1,020
    Skip M
    Oct 7, 2004
  2. 645 MF in pixel equivalent

    , Oct 2, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    1,309
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
    Oct 3, 2004
  3. RichA

    New Pentax 645 and the death of the CF card

    RichA, Mar 13, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    398
    Bruce
    Mar 15, 2010
  4. RichA

    Big Pentax 645 blows away top DSLRs

    RichA, Dec 4, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    612
    Ray Fischer
    Dec 10, 2010
  5. shilla
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,757
    DasFox
    Jan 22, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page