[Paul the Sunman]

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.

Minolta seems to have only been an entrée to the business for Sony. It is hard to detect much Minolta DNA in the current Sony offerings, so I suspect Option 3 is the answer. The great back-catalogue of K-mount glass would have sadly been orphaned. Did we dodge a bullet?

Does anyone think otherwise?

[biz-engineer]

Exactly where Sony is now, with the K-mount phased out (as the A-mount has effectively been)

The decision of Sony to make mirrorless cameras was to work around the competitive barriers of Canon and Nikon leaders in the DSLR market. So, if Sony had purchased Pentax, they would have done the same, phased out the K mount (instead of A mount) and made the Sony Alfa MILC.

[luftfluss]

I agree with @biz-engineer

Sony would have harvested any useful Pentax tech and then dropped the brand.

[Not a Number]

I agree no. 3 would have been most likely. Although it was rumored around the time of the Hoya acquisition that Canon was seriously considering buying the Pentax camera brand with the sole intention of killing off a competitor.

[Paul the Sunman]

It is interesting that Sony have discontinued A-mount in the US (and elsewhere?), but maintain it in some form in Japan "because there are a certain number of customers (there) for A-mount cameras". This may be the same Japanese sensibility that keeps Pentax going along the DSLR route.

[biz-engineer]

Although it was rumored around the time of the Hoya acquisition that Canon was seriously considering buying the Pentax camera brand with the sole intention of killing off a competitor.

Sometimes they do that because they think customers are attached to a supply by a chain (around the neck), but what happens is that customers move where they want, hence most mergers with the goal to capture customers turn out not making any value.

[AfterPentax Mark II]

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.

Minolta seems to have only been an entrée to the business for Sony. It is hard to detect much Minolta DNA in the current Sony offerings, so I suspect Option 3 is the answer. The great back-catalogue of K-mount glass would have sadly been orphaned. Did we dodge a bullet?

Does anyone think otherwise?

Same question if they had continued to work with Samsung?
1. Dead
2. Thriving as a DSLR Company
3. Class leading in DSLR and Mirrorless
4. Other

Samsung made probably the most innovative mirrorless camera's that one can imagine. (That is MHO and each time I see the results of my wife's NX20.)

[Alex645]

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?
Did we dodge a bullet?

Does anyone think otherwise?

If Sony had bought Pentax instead of Minolta in 2006? Dead.

Did we dodge a bullet? I don't think so. Minolta tended to push innovation (early AF with the Maxxum series) whereas Pentax has always been conservative. I don't think Sony was interested in Pentax like they were with Minolta.

Does anyone think otherwise? Guaranteed!!!

[Lowell Goudge]

Sometimes they do that because they think customers are attached to a supply by a chain (around the neck), but what happens is that customers move where they want, hence most mergers with the goal to capture customers turn out not making any value.

Having successfully killed off several mounts themselves, yet still maintaining sales of new gear, why would they even think any differently, they do have a large customer base chained to them, regardless of what they do to their customers

[yucatanPentax]

Sony would never have tolerated another brand association, so the name "Pentax" would have died an early death. They may have used supply chain relationships or technology acquired from Pentax, but a quick and certain death would have been the result.

In a lot of ways, Pentax' relationship with Hoya, while not entirely positive and having deservedly seen downsides, their ownership preserved the venerable Pentax name. For that much, I'm thankful.

[ramseybuckeye]

The only answer is dead, Konica Minolta ceased making DSLRs and sold the mount and manufacturing assets to Sony, they did not sell the Konica Minolta name, although Sony took over the service of the Konica Minolta cameras also. The two companies had been jointly developing DSLRs at the time.

[pinholecam]

#3

Nothing remains from Minolta on a Sony A7 series.
If you think about it, all the technologies on an A7 is largely independent of a Minolta SLR.
Different mount, No mirror box, different interface.
They could have likely pooled people from the handphone and computer divisions than the SLR/DSLR one.

All that Minolta provided would have been some sensor interfacing and color science know how (and even the one for the sensor may already be there from the sensor maker... Sony again... )
Ok.. lenses.. yes, maybe the largest contribution would have been the lens knowledge and patents.

So all in, Pentax would have about the same in contribution to Sony as Minolta, so likely they will have ended similarly.

[clackers]

Yes, it would've been extinction.

For possibly no gain ... Sony may quit the camera business as Olympus has done. Its investors have already lumped the underperforming consumer electronics divisions into one entity that could be sold off.

Their mentality is not like the established camera companies.

[Alex645]

Sony took over the service of the Konica Minolta cameras also.

I've personally had bad experiences with these sorts of partnerships where the obligation is not honored.

For me, it was the reverse where Sony dye sublimation printing technology was sold to DNP (Dai Nippon Printing). I had two fairly new and expensive Sony printers. DNP acquired the technology from Sony. Sony discontinued their ribbon and paper required to run the printers and DNP couldn't be bothered to make the products forcing anyone needing dye sublimation to purchase DNPs own very similar but different enough printers, ribbons, and papers.

Another example was owning a Minolta film scanner that Sony would not repair.

Conclusion? Sony doesn't care about their customers.

[Wheatridger]

#3

Nothing remains from Minolta on a Sony A7 series.
If you think about it, all the technologies on an A7 is largely independent of a Minolta SLR.
Different mount, No mirror box, different interface.
They could have likely pooled people from the handphone and computer divisions than the SLR/DSLR one.

All that Minolta provided would have been some sensor interfacing and color science know how (and even the one for the sensor may already be there from the sensor maker... Sony again... )
Ok.. lenses.. yes, maybe the largest contribution would have been the lens knowledge and patents.

So all in, Pentax would have about the same in contribution to Sony as Minolta, so likely they will have ended similarly.

I disagree. At the time, I was a Konica Minolta user, with their late, lamented 7D. It was the first DSLR with IBIS. Konica Minolta also brought to the table a deep and respected level of color science and a large body of quality AF lenses. Their ergonomics were top notch; the 7D was as control-rich as the K-1. The first Sony alphas took all that and improved on it, offering the first affordable FF DSLR, the a900, which sold for at least a grand below the Nikon and Canon prices. (I still think my a900 had a bigger and brighter viewfinder than my K-1.) Sony got an instant foothold in the market by inheriting Minolta's base of lenses. During the '80s -90s, Minolta Maxxum was the pioneer in autofocus, and they were quite popular with non-pro photographers. But they were last into the digital DSLR game, which hurt them tremendously.

In the first few years of Sony alpha DSLRs, we mostly relied on Maxxum lenses.I remember one week, following the Sony takeover, when I canvassed Denver pawn shops and scored three Maxxum 70-210/4 "Beercans," each for $75. Maybe the most compelling lens in that mount, it gave gorgeous bokeh. If I could use it on my cameras, I would.

As the switched course into mirrorless, Sony did jettison Minolta's ergonomic excellence, and orphaned the A-mount. today, you'd be hard pressed to spot any similarities. But I doubt that Sony could have advanced so fast and so sucessfully without using Konica Minolta as a steppingstone. At that point, their still photo products ranged from passport cameras to compact pocket zoom cameras, all with tiny sensors.

---------- Post added 12-01-21 at 10:34 PM ----------

[quote=pinholecam;5453688]#3