Before the netbook there was the ultraportable notebook, and you might consider buying one of those instead if you want a little more processing oomph.

In particular, if you want to keep the cost down I would take a look at a secondhand IBM/Lenovo Thinkpad X series, where a healthy supply of ex-corporate leasing machines holds prices in check. These were and in some cases still are very high specification machines, with excellent build quality and only a relatively small trade-off in battery life versus the latest Intel mobile processors.

Depending on your appetite I would look be looking either at the X61, X31 or the X60 if you can find one with a Core2Duo processor; avoid the CoreDuos since they are apparently prone to overheating which can lead to fractures in the case.

As for CUDA, I am sceptical the extent to which Lightroom would be able to benefit significantly from this even if implemented. As I understand it is targeted at 3D graphics, as well as Matlab type applications.

Take a look at this: October 2009 System Buyers guide

That should explain the main technologies and clarify the various trade-offs.

Stefan, I’ll try to briefly outline some further thoughts on the sensor issue.

First of all I believe Nikon - certainly in the past - have some sort of sensor co-development alliance with Sony, in which case they do have in-house capabilities, perhaps with a stake in relevant patents, IP etc.

However, the question of in-house capabilities in general is anyway not something I necessarily see as a key strategic issue in future, although it is surely problematic for Pentax today. Emerging industries like photo sensors naturally undergo a process of competitive selection where the best products tend to emerge from the field over time. If after such a market shakeup those products were to come from say Sony, that makes no difference to the camera market at that stage, as long as the sensors are widely available. Which they would likely have to be to get into a dominant position in the first place

What I am saying is that the Kx’s IQ - which is clearly winning plaudits - is not a long term product differentiator in the market; rather it is to a large extent generic to the sensor. And on this basis Pentax are in fact at a considerable competitive disadvantage, since they are undoubtedly unable to obtain similar volume discounts to the market leaders. Of course the colour factor may also be driving sales but again this is obviously not necessarily unique to the Kx.

The reality is that regardless of the length of time it takes for the sensor market to become commoditised, Pentax is now already strategically positioned largely as a packager of third party technology, competing wholly on marketing skills. And If I were a betting man which I am, it seems to me the formbook suggests exceptionally long odds of success for that business model. However, it is likely the best option available barring a complete closure, which I’m afraid in my view still appears the logical option for Hoya given the chronically loss-making operations.

To clarify, what I mean by a streamlined product range is one were there is a clearly defined ratcheting up of features in models along with price; objectively and subjectively that includes sensor capabilities.

Obviously there is group that argues better high ISO performance is unnecessary for serious photography. However, I find it hard to accept that this view is based on anything other than some sort of superstitious interpretation of film photography folklore. Surely the point of being able to adjust aperture and shutterspeed is to give the experienced photographer exposure flexibility. By improving high ISO performance that flexibility is greatly enhanced, for example allowing you to take far more small aperture shots handheld. Rationally speaking it is quite simply a losing proposition to argue for less flexibility.

And even we one accepts the superstitious view that the market has been duped by slick advertising, which is in general a possibility I am far from hostile to, it is simply madness to ignore this from a marketing perspective, since it is de facto a key metric defining the competition’s high end offerings. Ya gotta play the game!

Alas here I believe Pentax’s key strategic weakness is exposed; they appear to have little to no in-house sensor development capabilities, relying on third parties (eg Samsung, Sony) to deliver the goods. Furthermore, I bet the bought in sensors come with extensive software development packages to greatly facilitate overall product design.

This means that although the Kx appears to be doing relatively well at present, the sensor delivers no sustainable competitive advantage to Pentax, as it is presumably available to anybody on an arms length basis. Indeed maybe Pentax are sticking with Samsung for the highend, to keep alive hopes of salvaging their previously much closer strategic relationship, which undoubtedly appears to be on the rocks, notwithstanding Ned Burrel’s bizarre recent comments.

Furthermore, without having seen ‘current’ volume figures for the market I would guess it is well down from the peak, and it seems to me certainly Nikon and Sony have been holding back on genuine new model introductions, likely intending to launch into better market conditions. And needless to say in a range of colours if that is deemed to be having a material market impact.

Separately, the relative success of the Kx likely pales into insignificance compared to that of micro 4/3 in general and Olympus in particular, and a major shift in the composition of the enthusiast market segment is almost certainly underway.

However, the future is inherently uncertain, and after a very long dry spell Pentax finally appears to have some positive market momentum in the dslr segment, if only from a tiny base. They need to capitalise on this and get their product line-up streamlined urgently, and if that necessitates giving up on Samsung they should do so quickly, since their sensor designs in any case don’t seem to be cutting the mustard.

Where? Japan? The World?

In terms of global market share I recall a figure of around 3-4% in volume terms for 2008, which would translate into a lower number in value terms.

However, it may be that in 2008 in Japan - possibly measured to the end of March to coincide with the Japanese financial year - the K10 and K20 were both current models, in which case they might together have captured say 1.5% of the market, without showing up individually.

This stuff really needs to be systematically analysed, which is not a trivial task given several different publically available sources for the various regions, but the numbers mentioned are well within the ballpark.

What I find interesting about the discussion here, however, is another manifestation of cognitive dissonance. God knows I have and others have discussed these numbers at length, and they should come as no surprise to anybody. However, even somebody like Mongoose - who I consider to be relative Pentax realist - resorts to suspecting fault with the numbers.

What happens psychologically is this; people have in their mind a view of Pentax as being a prestige brand. They then receive dissonant information, namely that their market share is barely perceptible, and a psychological process causes the new information that is incompatible with pre-existing beliefs to be rationalised away; there is a mistake in the survey, the information is coming from a doomster, it is a trade press conspiracy, etc.

Fascinating stuff behavioural psychology, in my view.

Not at all.

First of all this is only related to dslrs.

As for the K20, alas it was evidently unable to muster a share of the market greater than 1%.

I strongly disagree.

The Kx is by all accounts doing relatively well as the entry level product to the Pentax ‘range’. On the other hand, with apologies to K7 owners it is an open secret that its sensor is inferior to that in the Kx.

This sets up a classic situation of cognitive dissonance; the better product is the cheaper one. How can it be resolved?

Well I for one have watched bemused at the fevered attempts to pigeonhole Pentax dslrs; are they entry level, advanced enthusiast, prosumer, pro, etc, etc ad nauseam. Clearly the perceived distinction is of great and perhaps critical importance to many people, therefore this group is unlikely to go out and buy the ‘entry level’ product.

However, cognitive dissonance is a genuine psychological malaise that needs be resolved. Perhaps Canikon has the answer?

Which is why Pentax need to streamline their product lineup as a matter of urgency.

I fear notwithstanding potential modest advances in Pentax’s relative market position recently, serious potential acquirors remain more in the Terry Tibbs league.

Interest rates and currencies go up and they go down.

Currently the speculative lending currency of choice is US dollars where interest rates are not only close to zero but actual funding costs have in fact been negative for punters overseas, with USD exchange rates ‘guaranteed’ to depreciate.

At least until that is no longer the case. Wheeeeeeeeee.