[Alex645]

Sort of yes and no - they've got a long string of firsts to their name, even if they haven't been huge risk takers

In the earliest Asahi years, yes they were risk takers and their firsts included the first Japanese-made SLRs for 35mm film, the first Japanese SLR with an instant-return mirror, and the first Japanese fixed-pentaprism SLR. But that was back in the 1950's.

Arguably they are still risk takers in continuing with DSLRs when the industry has gone Mirrorless. But from a different perspective, you could say that's conservative in not changing.

As much as I appreciate innovation and change, I have a greater appreciation for kanzai, or what is also called "The Toyota Way"; improvement and modification working towards perfection. Of all the Japanese camera marks, Pentax embraces kanzai.

[Pål Jensen]

...and the first auto focus SLR was a Pentax. First SLR with built in flash was also a Pentax. First aperture priority automatic SLR....etc...

[Lev]

I think Ricoh has lost money on Pentax. They probably haven't lost a large amount of money and probably, if you include cameras like the Theta and GR cameras, they have made money on the camera division.

For whatever reason, Ricoh has indicated that they are going to continue to support the K mount and if they ever sold the Pentax brand, they would need a commitment that the company that bought it would do the same.

Well this is something that really must be appreciated.

[Fogel70]

How much Minolta DNA was in those A mount cameras that Sony released? My impression was that pretty quickly they morphed away from something that Minolta would have released to Sony style gadgets.

Some of them where pretty solid and had a lot Minolta DNA, mostly the flagship models. Looking at Sony the A99 II from 2016 has a lot of similarities in the control layout from Minolta 7D. Sony even kept the distinct look on the mode dial from Minolta all those years.
But things move on and it is difficult to say where Minolta had been 10-15 years after they released the 7D model if they been more successful and continued making cameras.

As an innovative brand, Minolta might have been early with mirrorless cameras.

[Paul the Sunman]

Sony's jump to mirrorless seemed to cut the umbilical cord.

[shyrsio]

In the same place where Minolta is now, duh! Sony are a soulless company who couldn't care less for the heritage of the Pentax brand.

[clackers]

That seems unlikely. Sony would want to maintain its strong position in video.

Disagree, I think you saw what Sony did with your beloved Minolta.

@Focusrite, Sony are not like the other camera companies, they're aggressive globally, seek funding outside of the Japanese system, so are at the mercy of their international shareholders, who want high financial returns, not domination of marginal or unprofitable businesses.

This guy in the PetaPixel article below looks to have contributed to Olympus quitting the business ... Sony pulled their $760 million investment in them. And he thinks every dollar spent on the camera division is a dollar not spent on the entertainment one. He has chipped and chipped away and has achieved cameras not being their own entity ... they're lumped in with other consumer electronics in a new holding company.

To quote @shyrsio "Sony are a soulless company who couldn't care less for ... heritage"

https://petapixel.com/2020/03/26/sony-spins-off-camera-business-into-separate-company/

Note that Fuji have already decided to turn from cameras to healthcare to make profits.

https://petapixel.com/2021/07/09/fujifilm-pivoting-to-healthcare-but-claims-...n-photography/

Both Sony and Fuji sell way more cameras than Pentax ever does, but cannot make enough profits to keep their owners happy. In the case of Nikon, Olympus and probably Samsung, it was staggering losses as they 'bet the farm' on mirrorless cameras.

[texandrews]

#3. Sony took over Minolta probably while the A900 and then the A850 were in development. As a reminder, the A900 was the first DSLR that had people comparing its results to medium format film, when arguments were still hot about how many mp outdid 35mm film. And the A850 was the first FF camera to have an MRSP below $2K usd. At the time that was a significant achievement, and indeed got me to abandon Oly and my beloved E-3 to jump to FF (well, that and the Zony 16-35....). They kept up the pretense for a while, but then moved in toto to mirrorless. I got their NEX7 and A7R cameras as well. Fine cameras, all of them. And also as a reminder, at that time they were being dissed all over the place, including DPR.

So, that's what they would have done with Pentax as well. They might have killed off medium format in addition.

[pentaxus]

Minolta decided to get out of the camera business because they couldn't make sensors and didn't like someone else controlling them. Immediately after buying Minolta's SLR business Sony execs said that they would be changing how interchangeable lens cameras work. (The way they said it seemed eerie to me.) minolta found a buyer and Sony found a way to easily get a good foot hold in the camera business.

[Wasp]

It was not like Sony killed off the Minolta brand. It was never theirs. They only bought the Minolta camera technology, not the brand name or trademark. As for the lens mount they got in the deal, it stayed on the market for quite a while.

[ChucK20D]

Ricoh has been good for Pentax so far.

As far as I know the only Pentax product they've absorbed is the WG tough-cam series, and that was only a re-branding.

[Igor Sotelo]

Sony basically learned making lenses, some AF and Kettering details from Minolta, then started all over. Time has proven Sony brand very strong. Sony also learned a lot from their Zeiss association.

The rest was their own, they always made fine video cameras and were experts in sensors and microelectronics.

Imaging business was a great fit for them, once they advanced in lens design. Though, maybe isn’t that rentable.

With Pentax, they would do the same I guess. Learn what they can, than use it in a video camera like, mirrorless design with the Sony brand.

But with Pentax they could also opted to keep the brand as it’s a credible competitor to Canon and Nikon, specially if mega resources were to be poured in. Which I’m not sure was the case with Minolta, a brand that at no point in history was on pair in sales with Canon or Nikon.

[Kingman]

Pentax and the K mount would likely be "dead". I see very little of Sony's branding legacies in companies purchased or branding they have had in the past. Take Minolta's name since 2006, where is it? It's gone and no where to be found in current product marketing or even an attempt in any legacy recognition. Even within Sony's storied branding of their own innovative product merchandising, there is very little recognition of its past. Sony's Trinitron branding was a legendary gold standard branding of tube video monitors and televisions (I understand the term "trinitron" may not have any application to today's technology).

[Kunzite]

Where would Pentax have been now if Sony had bought the Pentax camera business in 2006 instead of Minolta's, and instead of Pentax merging with Hoya?

1. Dead
2. Thriving as a DSLR company
3. Exactly where Sony is now, with the K-mount phased out (as the A-mount has effectively been)
4. Other.

Pentax would have been:
- dead. Sony doesn't want any other name on their products.
- K-mount would have been phased out. Because Sony would still have gone mirrorless; that's more like their game (consumer electronic devices).

But wait, that's more: Konica-Minolta's photographic division would have been dead, too. Because they had problems - that's why they were for sale. Pentax wasn't for sale, and I think they would have been able to continue without the Hoya-SPARX thing.

In other words, imagine the exact same scenery as today's, except no Pentax at all.

[Kunzite]

As far as I know the only Pentax product they've absorbed is the WG tough-cam series, and that was only a re-branding.

Those weren't made by Pentax anyway.