Some simple arithmetic

That does not count Mike, even if you make it sound like it (Key and Rap)
oops

Come on Mike just type it quick

Canon are cool.

Canon are cool.

I cheated, I cut and paste so didn't have to type it.

honestly Terry, I would rather dig my own teeth out one by one with a blunt pair of scissors. I will say however that the MP-E 65 is probably one of the coolest lenses made by any maufacturer.

Can I have half the voucher now?

Send me your address by PM and i'll send it to you even cut and paste is ok,

Unless you want Mike-P to type it because we know he wanted tooooo.

PM sent.

It's a shame that the camera has the video function. Digital still cameras have a zero rate of import duty whilst video cameras, or cameras capable of video have at least 4.9%.

Check out the list here.

Do anyone know how the EU law works?
Maybe buying from the Netherlands for example might be a safer option then from the USA.
You already get a 5% VAT discount since we've 19% vat here, you don't pay import taxes so far as I know since it's from another EU country also warranty shouldn't be a problem for that reason, P&P is less then from the USA and the Pound is still worth more then the Euro but the both have the same numbers for the advice price.

I didn't ask for nothing if someone knows how the EU law works but I believe that what I said above is true although but don't take my word for it so digg into it to make sure!
You might not save as much as from the USA (£150 or less maybe) but it looks a lot safer to shop inside the EU.

Just my point of view though.

So over all those point and shoot camera with video you need to pay import duties too?

Check that out I would say, it would be discrimination if they have lower import then DSLR with video.

There is no Duty and no extra VAT to pay when importing from another EU country to the UK.

But are there any good deals in the Netherlands etc, bearing in mind the cost of shipping and the weak Pound against the Euro?

Do we get a discount? I thought we had to pay the local rate.

Close but no cigar.

The proposition Pentax have so far made is one of value, but this has not been accepted by the market since their market share has apparently been sliding from already low levels in recent years. It has therefore provided no competitive advantage.

More generally it is important to realise that under-pricing can never provide a sustainable source of competitive advantage, since this tactic is available to all players in the market.

The K7 appears to have some video related features that are not yet available from competitors; that is a potential competitive advantage for the time being, but one that is highly unlikely to be sustainable

However, Pentax have now jacked up prices for both lenses and the body thereby destroying their preexisting value proposition.

Time will tell whether they have correctly gauged market appetite, but I think they have hopelessly misread it in the current economic climate.

Furthermore, the key issue for Pentax is that their market share is simply not viable in the medium term. As such they are missing a golden opportunity to capture market share by over-pricing, while the competition has not yet responded as they surely will (Pentax's video capabilities appear to contain nothing proprietary).

In addition it strikes me they will alienate their most loyal existing customers who rush out to buy the body now when subsequently slashing prices as I have little doubt they will.

To me their marketing seems shambolic and amateurish; frankly the whole business sadly smacks of desperation.

IMHO weve had it too good for too long, Pentax have kept their prices down in a bid to gain a higher share of the market, lets face it how many of us would have the top of the range model if we shot with either Canon or Nikon? not many, because the price of those models would be way beyond our budgets.
Pentax need to compete with the big boys on a like for like basis offering similar spec cameras at similar prices, especially if they want to compete in the pro' market, many tradesmen believe the more they pay for their tools the better job they'll produce and in many cases this is true, I think pro photographers are the same.

The K7 cant be compared to the K20 so why are we comparing the price? and as for the £1000+ price tag.....didnt many of us pay about the same and more for the istD back in the days when £1k was worth a lot more than it is today?

I believe the proposition worked well for its intended market, but that market has changed. DSLR's are now mass mass market consumer electronics and the characteristics of buyers has changed. The majority are 'non photographers' on a shopping fix and who need instant gratification. They are impressed by flash marketing and availability.

I agree that price is not a sustainable competitive adbvantage, but value certainly is. (95% of the features/quality for 75% of the price stills hold true. That last 5 % costs a lot to produce.

I remember back in the 80's I was in the market for a decent vinly record playing turntable. I visited a specialist HiFi shop and listened to various trackes on a Rega Planar and a Linn Sondek. If I listened really closely I could pick up extra detail and vibrance at some points with the Linn, but it was 5 times the price of the Rega. It was no contest the Rega provided better value.

Steve

I take it you used to drive a Skoda or Lada then

Before you all start screaming for my head I am NOT comparing Pentax to early Skoda What I am trying to do is point out that generally speaking people associate low price with cost cutting and sub standard products and will quite often pay more for less simply because they think the product will be better.

It took Skoda a long time to shake off the publics opinion of them, maybe its time Pentax said to hell with it and sold cameras at the same price as the competition with the attitude its as good as yours because it cost the same to make, hang on a mo, maybe thats exactly what their doing with the K7