You're missing the point, or not reading what I wrote. Pentax aren't 'offering retailers higher profit margins' at all because they haven't actually increased the recommended retail prices of their cameras and lenses. Any retailers who accepted lower profit margins previously therefore were doing so entirely by their own choice. What Pentax have done is to restrict the discounts retailers (whether online or brick and mortar) can offer on these lenses. The purpose of this is not to increase profit margins, but to prevent online stores (which have lower overhead costs) from significantly undercutting high street stores. Of course American Pentax customers are not happy about this because it means, from their perspective, prices have effectively increased.

I've seen how this goes before, albeit in a different industry. If Pentax want increased visibility in high street stores they absolutely have to take this step. The stores are not even going entertain the idea of talking to them about it as long as online retailers are still permitted to undercut their prices.

As others have mentioned, Pentax most likely intend to reduce their prices in the coming months, but the crucial point is that they will keep the restrictions on discounts retailers can offer in place while doing it.


Again missing the point. What Pentax have done is exactly the opposite of this. They are telling retailers they can't offer huge discounts or special deals any more.

I don't think high street retailers are 'suddenly' going to do anything. However retail chains do not, in general, decide which brands to promote over which others in a vacuum. They enter into deals and negotiations with manufacturers and suppliers. What I am suggesting is that Pentax intend to strengthen their bargain position for the purposes of such negotiations. Of course it won't have instant results but Pentax will be planning for the medium to long term. Since Canon and Nikon already regulate their prices in the US, this will be a necessary step for Pentax if they are ever to be represented on more equal terms.

Yes, that is what I meant. You could crop your way there on a DSLR but you'd have a whole lot less than 12 Megapixels left. Don't make me do the maths on that one.

My guess is Pentax want (much) greater visibility in high street retail stores, particularly the large chains. They want the Pentax DSLR range (which they have hinted will expand in the not too distant future) to be displayed in high street stores on a equal footing, or as close as possible, with Canon and Nikon. They're far more likely to be able to negotiate that kind of visibility if they restrict the discounts online retailers can offer. The large high street chains are not likely to do any deals on increased display space, better staff awareness of products and all that good stuff while online stores can massively undercut their prices. Pentax stop online retails undercutting them, and the high street chains will start negotiating.

Pentax may lose some customers through this, but if they do the right deals with the high street chains they could well gain more than they lose. While online retailing is now massive, most first time DSLR buyers probably still go to large high street stores, and that's the market Pentax will be aiming for. If they intend (as hinted) to expand their DSLR range and sustain it, they have to pull in far more fist time DSLR buyers than they are right now. And if that's the market they're aiming for, they're going to want as close as possible to a level playing field in that market. Who wouldn't?

I'm not sure I understand your question but a K mount adaptor for the Q has no lens elements as far as I know. All it has to do is put some space between the Q mount and the K mount in order to provide the correct register distance.

The Pentax Q with K-mount adaptor is a very interesting prospect as it would be the equivalent of something like a 3.5x teleconverter (compared to APS-C). Of course the image quality is not as good as a DSLR but I'm guessing it would still be considerably better than using an actual 3.5x teleconverter on a DSLR, not to mention the fact that unlike a teleconverter it would have no detrimental effect on the lens's effective aperture value. 1650mm (rough 35mm equivalent) at F/4 anybody? Get yourself a DA* 300 and a Pentax Q...

Indeed. I was in a Jessops store the other day and overheard one of the salesmen advising a customer who was obviously new to the DSLR world that they would need a UV filter for each of their DSLR lenses because looking through the viewfinder without one could, I quote, 'damage your retina'.

I also overheard a salesman in the same store advise a customer that a certain model of bridge camera was 'the only one on the market to offer a hot shoe'. At least the UV filter advice could be put down to ignorance at a pinch, if one were feeling generous. This one is simply an outright lie.

This wee fella sat and waited patiently a few feet away while I changed lenses from the 17-50 to the 55-300, enabling this opportunistic snapshot. Bless it's little soul.

From the 'other forums' (emphasis mine):

...Apparently not a major problem for the many others who have used the same letter combination, including the entire country of Kazakhstan...

Oooh, a vaguely camera-shaped blurry blob. How exciting.