Visit MPB Visit MPB Visit MPB

Seriously - film SLRs phased out? Pentax.com

tijean
Posted 08/11/2004 - 18:28 Link
I read the post a few rungs down about Pentax phasing out production of it's film cameras and had to do a virtual tongue bite to keep from replying with "do you believe everything you read on the internet?" I had heard of distribution in Russia stopping, but I did not pay much attention because 1) they are referring to a post on the internet and 2) call me Americentric, but I am not very concerned with camera distribution in Russia.

But then I go to the website and there is no more compare feature in the Film SLR section. Why? Because there are only three cameras - *ist, ZX-60, and ZX-M. If you go the "find a store" section there is no selection for film SLR. It seems like very token marketing and sales support. This was changed shortly after Photokina (I remember because I was stalking the site for *istDS info).

What is going on? Phase out? Support drop? Complete stoppage of production for other models? I will be picking up an *ist DS virtually the day it comes out (*ist D was a bit more then my budget. I did not pick Pentax because I am the type of person with $1700USD laying around to spend on a camera) and am glad to see Pentax trying to rear it's competitive head, but it seems too sad that the company that made the LX (just as one example of singular excellence) would be down to, well, the *ist, ZX-60, and ZX-M.

... I guess I knew it was over 6 years ago when I recieved a ZX-10 as a Christmas present. ANyone who has ever had the misfortune to handle a ZX-10 knows what I am saying.

Maybe this is less of a question and more a vent but feel free to respond with information, theories, or similar venting.
johnriley
Posted 08/11/2004 - 19:01 Link
I guess time moves on, and apart from those of us who have a particular reason to use film, I think most of the market will quickly now become digital. Pentax and all other manufacturers will follow the profitable lines, apart from those wishing to continue to support what may well become a niche market in film.

If I were starting photography today, I would probably not even be looking at film at all, would never experience its benefits and be amazed that anyone would bother....

However, as we know, film does have some unique and beneficial features, and there will be plenty of photographers keeping it going for many years yet!

I believe that we should just have a go at whatever sort of photography interests us, and enjoy it!
Best regards, John
mattie
Posted 09/11/2004 - 05:51 Link
Hi

There are 5 cameras on the UK Pentax site (pentax.co.uk), the ones on the US site plus the MZ-6 and the MZ-S. They've droped the MZ-3, not sure what else was there recently.

The US site has been totally revamped, perhaps they just haven't bothered to include the older cameras as yet? I always feel a little uncomfortable with their actions, it feels like they're withholding information to steer people to digital. The US website, in its previous guise, was always a lot more informative than the UK, so it is quite surprising that they've omitted these cameras. Even if they're not manufacturing them any more, they are still selling them, so shouldn't they be included on the website?

As an aside, I looked at the 'historical products' section, and to my surprise there was no MX. Was it not released in America?

Matt
Kim C
Posted 09/11/2004 - 07:08 Link
Hi Mattie,
As far as I am aware, the MX was released in the States and it was very popular. As far as their website is concerned, I am not sure you can read that much into it. It may be that the UK has yet to catch up and delete some cameras but then again look at the quality of the manuals they put on their website. If I can produce reasonable quality scans, I am sure they can. There just seems to be a lack of regard for their customers. The threads on broken Point and shoots would also suggest this. Maybe we are just too loyal a bunch.

As to stoping film cameras, only time will tell. I wouldn't put too much weight on the contents of the website. I haven't heard of any press releases (yet) and most of the dealers I know are still getting updates to their dealer info and have no information on a decision to stop film cameras. Market forces will no doubt be the deciding factor but it is difficult for an outsider to guage this. There is still a huge population in the world in general that has not "gone digital". Furthermore, Pentax stopped being one of "the big 3" many years ago and yet continued to produce some very expensive and esoteric glass. How many amatuers but huge, fast telephotos?

As to John's comment on not starting out in digital. I am not sure that is true. My son at 20 yrs old decided that his best option was a digital for point and shoot but wanted an *ist for "proper" pictures. In this case I think cost was the deciding factor (as well as dad's array of lenses!). DSLRs are still an order of several magnitudes more expensive than film ones. I suspect that most sre bought by people who are already "into photography". I don't think this has been or is the case for film SLRs, where many would buy an SLR as a family camera having maybe only had an instamatic or similiar. Film won't last forever but it will go on until the price difference between film and digital becomes a lot less.

What if I were starting out again? I don't know whether it would be film or digital but it would no longer be Pentax. I think that that is more of the problem. It's not that people are moving away from Film but they are moving away from Pentax. Look in any of the High Street dealers or the ads in the mags and there is very little Pentax. I believe they are also losing their status in the medical and other fields. It could be soon that Pentax become a "cult" manufacturer. However, I don't think they have sufficient status to survive in this area in the same way as Contax, Leica and the others.

Time to get off the soap box

Kim
George Lazarette
Posted 09/11/2004 - 08:39 Link
I don't know why people are having so much trouble getting their heads around this.

Cameras are not produced by hand; they are mass-produced by very complex and sophisticated machines. It costs very little to make one camera, provided you make hundreds of thousands. However, if volumes fall to a few thousand, or even less, then the economics change completely, and each camera would cost so much to produce that nobody would buy it.

That is what is happening with film cameras. There is still some demand, but it is now so low that it no longer makes economic sense to produce them. Anybody doing so will lose money on every one.

If you've ever wondered why some Pentax lenses cost £10,000 or more, it is because they are hand-made. If you want to pay £30,000 for an MZ-S, then I am sure Pentax would be happy to make you one. If not, then snap up some second-hand cameras at dirt cheap prices on Ebay.

At the end of the day, people go for convenience, and digital beats film hands-down on that score. As for quality, well that's another story, though in my view the average user gets better prints from digital than he used to from film because the photo-labs did such a poor colour-matching job with print film.

I've gone digital, but I still have an old Leica and an old Spottie for when the mood takes me. Which, I have to say, is not very often these days.

It's always sad to witness the end of an era, but wishing things were different won't make them so.

George
mattie
Posted 09/11/2004 - 09:58 Link
Hi George

I appreciate you include the reference to hundreds of thousands as being the minimum batch size simply to illustate a point, as in you can't manufacture one-offs. However, it is not quite that clear-cut. The major cost involved in manufacture is the tooling, and that already exists and is unlikely to need much maintenance that is specific to a given camera - obsolesence of many products is sometimes enforced as dies etc. wear and are uneconomical to replace. I am not sure if this is the case with Pentax, if so I am highly suspicious that dies for each camera failed at the same time. The only non-equipment cost caused by manufacturing different film cameras is that caused by changeover. Modern manufacture has moved away from accepting the cost of changeover (in other words, just computing what the minium efficient batch is based upon poor changeover performance, and manufacturing that batch size) to actually attempting to (and succeeding in) reducing the changeover duration and cost. This is one of the tenets of lean manufacture and responsive manufacture and forms part of the just-in-time philosophy that Japanese firms developed over many years. What this means is that Pentax could feasibly make small batches, indeed they will have invested great effort in reducing the size of their batches to give them more managerial flexibility. This is especially important to a small company like Pentax, who do not sell a great number of cameras. The use of common components across models also assists in this (for example, Canon use almost identical electronics between the 300D and 10D, with software used to cripple some features on the 300D).

I don't agree with your argument that it is uneconomical to produce film cameras. If changeover performance cannot be improved to maintain sufficient profit, then simply reduce the range so you have fewer changeovers - that is what we are seeing here. To put it concisely, the actual cost of manufacture with changes in batch size varies very little, it is the cost of changing manufacture between products, once factored in, that causes problems.

Still, I agree with your point regarding the balance of power between film and digital. Times are changing, digital is taking a huge chunk of the photography market. Film camera ranges will be pared down, ever the optimist I am foreseeing a future where only high-end film cameras are made and the budget models are replaced as casual photographers use digital almost exclusively. This is a mirror image of the early DSLR market, where only technically high-quality prodicts will be available to those who want them, at a price to match their quality, and the DSLR market will have an option for all budgets.

I'm not wishing for the continuation of the dominance of film, but having mastered an art, and having taken great pleasure from doing so, I'll be upset if some branch of film photography doesn't continue. I'm not expecting huge film camera ranges or a new model every year, just some ambition from Pentax to support film in some manner, and that was the original point I took from tijean's post - that Pentax are not being forthcoming with their plans, or making it clear what level of support they will be offering. They were happy enough to take my money*, I expect a decent duration of support for my pains.

*high horse alert, made even worse by the fact I bought all my Pentax gear second-hand!
Kimbo
Posted 09/11/2004 - 11:26 Link
Let's wait and see, shall we?
It's perfectly obvious that film will be around for years to come, 'old-fashioned' 110 and medium format films are still available as are traditional papers and studio equipment. Digital is great but already we are seeing adverts for printers where they say we are longing for pictures that we can 'hold' and pass around.
I have a digital but most of the pictures are stored either on the SD card, PC hard drive or CD rom - I've printed very few!
You know, it's far easier to send a film to be processed and have a decent, complete set of prints returned that can be shown to everyone than to do it yourself.
Like it or not, most photos are simple snapshots, they record a specific scene or event, they are not masterpieces or works of art and usually receive a "nice" comment when shown to aunt Hilda!
Sure, you could send away your memory card but then, apart from in-camera editing, what would be the point of digital?
Thanks to companies like Pentax, there are millions of 35mm cameras out there (I've got seven........or is it eight?), it seemed every couple of months that a new Espio with an extra couple of mm added to it's zoom range was released and the market was absolutely saturated.
Now there's digital and even mobile-camera-phones but I don't believe that they'll replace film - not for a long while, because people want to see photos, real photos and not everybody has access to a computer or the time and inclination to produce their own prints or create web-sites.
For many, I believe the novelty of digital will begin to wear off and they'll resume using film once again.
Did Polaroid instant film put photo labs out of business?
Did APS over shadow 35mm?
Was it the Titanic or the Olympic?
........NO, NO and who knows? but I bet we'll see traditional film for a long time and new cameras to use it
Die my dear doctor, that's the last thing I shall do!
Kim C
Posted 09/11/2004 - 13:34 Link
Hi,
The film/digital debate will go on for a long time. I think the real question is not how long film will last but how long Pentax will last. As I said earlier it is very difficult to find any Pentax in the High Street and most dealers treat it as special order only. This also goes for the independents like Sigma. Very few if any shops keep Pentax fit in stock. As far as digital is concerned, Pentax seem to introduce items about 9-12 months behind the others and at a much higher cost. For the first time today, I saw an *istD in the flesh so took the opportunity to look at it. I also asked about the DS. As soon as I did that, the lady in the shop said she would do a very, very good price on the D. The reason being is that she said she wouldn't be able to sell it when the DS was available because it was too expensive. The only reason they had got one in was as a special order for a regular who then changed his mind. There were 2 others in the shop looking for a DSLR in this bracket, Pentax was not on their list because the equivalent Canon and Nikon were cheaper, more readily available and had better systems. Pentax used to be at the forefront but now the are approaching the third division. If I started again would I go Pentax? No, not because they aren't developing film cameras but their range is too narrow and too expensive compared with the opposition

Kim
Kimbo
Posted 09/11/2004 - 14:28 Link
I think you are probably right Kim and the same could perhaps be said of Olympus. My father was a devotee of the OM series and no one can deny the quality of their manual slr outfits but they never really shone in the AF market. Like Pentax, they produce an extensive range of compacts and digitals but the range of 35mm slr's is limited and expensive.
Maybe market forces will dictate a change of policies or maybe they won't and digital will reign supreme but it would be sad to see the demise of such companies, in particular Asahi Pentax who have been so innovative in the field of 35mm photography for so many years.
Perhaps we've reached the peak of 35mm camera development and it's time to move on and hopefully Pentax can keep up.

I recall a magazine article from a few years ago when the Canon EOS300 was compared to the Minolta Dynax 8000. The writer commented that cameras such as these were approximately 98% accurate in terms of exposure and focussing and that no camera could ever be 100% - so it was about as good as it could get.
We've progressed a little since then but the sentiment was true and I guess it's time for 35mm to stand aside but I'd like to see Pentax produce a range of multi-format cameras capable of using both film and digital technologies at affordable high street prices.
Die my dear doctor, that's the last thing I shall do!
Anonymous
Posted 09/11/2004 - 14:40 Link
Kim C wrote:
Hi,
If I started again would I go Pentax? No, not because they aren't developing film cameras but their range is too narrow and too expensive compared with the opposition

Kim

I agree with you in parts. I think I should stress that the quality Nikon and Canon gear is expensive, about as expensive as Pentax except for some telephotos which are cheaper simply because they're not such bespoke items. I think with digital Pentax is firefighting as it doesn't have the resources of Nikon or Canon. Once the playing field starts to level, I think parity will be restored - price is the major thing in digital at the minute, and it is still an emerging technology with resultant development costs, which must be shared out amongst the equipment sold. Pentax has much lower market share, so fewe sold and higher cost per unit. I think the issue with the *istD and *istDs is common to many DSLRs, where the D70 and 300D stole a lot of the market from the earlier Canon and Nikons.

I agree about the systems though. I buy most of my gear used, and have had no end of trouble finding it. I have tried to buy some stuff new, including an FA 50mm f/1.4, which was on order for ages until, by chance, found one used in Jessops. I have no doubt if I wanted the same lens but in the Canon or Nikon marque it would have been there within the week. Not that I buy any, but I've heard a lot of people on dpreview bemoaning the lack of higher quality Pentax gear, such as 300 f/2.8 lenses, which shops just don't stock. Canon and Nikon, perhaps due to the Pro market, have no such troubles.

I think a lot of people have followed the same path as me, buying old Pentax gear for cost and quality reasons, and are now beginning to notice the lack and cost of new equipment. I still think I'd choose Pentax, purely because, as someone who buys used equipment for budget reasons, the choice is by far and away the best for old, high quality gear. Unfortunately the same cannot be said for newer, high quality gear. If you're happy using old, simple, well-made equipment Pentax is still a leader, but if you want the latest technology then perhaps best to look elsewhere.

Matt
mattie
Posted 09/11/2004 - 14:41 Link
Sorry, above post was mine, didn't notice I wasn't logged in.
George Lazarette
Posted 10/11/2004 - 20:27 Link
Mattie,

If you're right about the ability of Pentax to produce small batches cost-effectively (and I don't think you are - your "small batch" is still more than the market requires), then why isn't Pentax still producing these cameras?

I do agree that film will be available for quite a long time. But it will be harder to get, and the choice will be more limited. It will also be harder to find someone to process it.

George
Kim C
Posted 10/11/2004 - 21:47 Link
Hi,
I am in agreement in broad terms with Matt. Pentax have shown they can produce small batchs of cameras over the years with all the Limited and SE versions they have produced. There have been several specials of the LX, a gold K1000 and SE versions of the K1000, MES and ME. There was even a special badge version of the Super A. Whilst it may be too expensive to produce a replacement for the MZ-S, the developement costs have already been paid and it is purely production costs. Besides which, would a replacement be any more capable? The K1000 went on way after it's tecnological sell by date but only because there was a demand even though there were "better" cameras available.

As to the cost of the different companies, I remember when I started, there was the big 3. Nikon were the "pro" choice and had prices to match, Canon and Pentax had a great range with slightly more affordable prices and then there were the "slightly cheaper" companies such as Fujica, Minolta etc who didn't have the same range. Olympus then came along as Kimbo said and produced the OM series. (Big arguments with my brother who was an OM man!). Pentax tried to respond with the M series but lost a lot of sales. At the start of AF, Pentax were slow off the mark and their position was really taken over by Minolta. Now the "pro" firm of Nikon are producing their equivalent cameras earlier than Pentax and more importantly at a lower price. Canon are cheaper still. Modern economics would indicate that if Pentax are stopping production of any cameras, it is because of a lack of sales. I suspect that the problem is not that people are buying digital rather than film but are buying other brands instead. The quality of Pentax glass used to be legendary and often beat the more expensive Nikon lenses hands down on performance though they were not perhaps so rugged. More recently, there have been a fair number of "poor" quality Pentax lenses. Maybe not bad but certainly not great. The problem is that the alternatives were and are of a similiar or better optical and build quality but cheaper.

As I said earlier, if I had no affinity and was starting out, be it in digital or film, I would get a wider choice and perhaps even better quality at a cheaper price with one of the other 3 and indeed the independent lenses. As it is I will stay in Matt's corner. Nearly all my equipment was bought second hand. There's no way I could have afforded it otherwise and I like the way Pentax's handle! Apart from that I am having great fun messing with Asahiflex's and M42 at the moment

I'll get back in my corner!
Kim
George Lazarette
Posted 11/11/2004 - 07:54 Link
Kim,

Pentax lost market share prior to the M series because of two things. First, they were the last brand to introduce a bayonet mount; and second, the Olympus OM was a great success, and took market share from all competing companies.

Pentax fought back with the ME and the MX, and recovered a lot of lost ground, and became market leader again.

It was after the M series that they really went downhill. Canon went for the low end of the market and hoovered up a lot of sales with cheap and cheerful cameras, whilst Minolta produced the first really good auto-focus cameras.

The SFX was a sturdy and worthy camera, but lacked excitement. Pentax could have fought back with the Z1 and Z1-P (easily the best cameras for the money at the time), but they failed to develop the range. By the time the MZ-S came along, it was too late.

The good news is that the *ist DS is a fine camera at a very good price.

It is worth remembering that Pentax does a lot more than produce cameras (which is probably why it took its eye off the ball). It is still a profitable company, and in my view it is most unlikely either to go bust or to pull out of camera manufacture in the foreseeable future.

Just a point re the small batch "special editions". These were a marketing exercise, pure and simple, undertaken to gain publicity. There is not a shred of evidence that they made any money in themselves, and they do not support the theory that Pentax or any other manufacturer can viably produce even established cameras in those quantities.

George
mattie
Posted 11/11/2004 - 07:57 Link
George Lazarette wrote:
Mattie,

If you're right about the ability of Pentax to produce small batches cost-effectively (and I don't think you are - your "small batch" is still more than the market requires), then why isn't Pentax still producing these cameras?

I do agree that film will be available for quite a long time. But it will be harder to get, and the choice will be more limited. It will also be harder to find someone to process it.

George

Hi George

They are. The film cameras they have kept indicate that they can still make such cameras effectively, however they have every reason to push the *ist as it may be considered the most advanced they have. The Z1-p, for example, retails for a lot of money, and does not compete with the offerings from Canon, Nikon et al - I've tried an EOS-1v and the Z1-p is not even in the same ballpark. The *ist, however, does compete well with the Nikon and Canons and has been very favourably reviewed. I would posit that they don't make the Mz-3/5n, z1-p or MZ-S not because it is uneconomical to do so, but that they realise that they are not competitive products in the overall market. I appreciate this is a slightly circular argument, stating that Pentax could make small batches but then saying that they would sell too few to justify it, but I am arguing that I think these cameras have been dropped simply because other Marques offer better solutions, usually for less money. Please note this is not to say that Pentax film cameras are uneconomical to make, simply that some models are at the end of their shelf-life and are uncompetitive in the modern marketplace. Of course, this involves some idea that the minimum economical batch size is less than the market supports, but this was never my argument - Pentax can produce film cameras in batches smaller than you had prevously suggested, I did not argue that they would maintain all models as these can be dropped for any number of reasons. I argued that changing production from one batch to another was the main cost of manufacture, hence if the range is rationalised they can continue making small batches with fewer costly modifcations to lines. Of course, there becomes a point when the batch size is too small, but that point is considerably lower than the hundreds of thousands you state - I'm still unsure whether you meant that illustratively or not. I actually work in a centre specialising in flexible manufacturing research, and the concensus is that, if existing tooling and protocols already exist, it is feasible to have batches sizes of the order of hundreds. Japanese car manufacturers can change tooling on a car panel press in 30 seconds, and manufacture car panels in batches of around 20. It really is pretty amazing. I've been searching for sales figures to get a better grasp of the situation, but have so far drawn a blank.

Regarding your processing point, I have no idea what is going to happen, but I think you could be right when you suggest that procesing is going to become difficult. We've been spoilt by cheap labs for a while, when these drop film in favour of digital I expect to see prices rise. I'm also concerned by Ilford's woes, I am happy to keep shooting film monochrome but if Ilford go then supplies might become scarse and expensive. As it stands Monochrome is cheap as chips, which is one of the reasons I can partake as much as I do. However, having seen the price of colour chemicals and paper, if monochrome ever reaches those levels I don't think I could continue.

Cheers

Matt

Add Comment

To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.