[jeffkrol]

What?

Hoya owns what was Pentax and now it is just a division of Hoya so unless there is some sort of surviving corporate entity for Hoya to "sell" to (what we call an "inter-company transfer" where I work) and some sort of tax or other reason to do so, anything Pentax uses or can use from the Hoya product line would simply be part of the cost of goods for Pentax brand products. Any markup or profit that others pay for similar items or that Pentax used to pay Hoya for similar items would have to be removed and the real cost of that item applied to the Pentax product where it was used.

It's not like you can make up your costs however you want. Everything used to build your product has to tie back to what you actually paid for that item (or an average of what you paid, or LIFO or FIFO, but still it is based upon actual material costs) plus any overhead you apply. Even your overhead applied has to utlimately tie to the real overhead costs like your buildings and other costs that you can associate with the product and it's manufacture. The accountants and auditors spend a lot of time making sure that all of this is true.

I am sure that Hoya intends to completely integrate all areas that reduce costs and improve efficiencies for Pentax, a fact that Hoya management has made very clear in their statements to date, and I would be surprised if Glass is not a major part of that plan for cameras, endoscopes, and anything else that uses optical glass. After all, this is quite an advantage for Hoya, who is a very major supplier of optical glass, which means improved margins and profits for the Pentax products versus the competition.

Ray

Technically it's "Pentax became a 90.58%-owned subsidiary of HOYA." And as to division seperation I believe they are still doing this as a "failsafe"........
"The major conclusions in this announcement are that the Pentax name will remain, that Pentax's optical business will merge with Hoya's but that Pentax's current imaging systems division (that which is responsible for digital cameras) will continue."
Wouldn't make any sense not to make "profit" off selling blanks to the optical division. Just think about what would happen if a "product lens" tanked...... Pentax "imaging system" will reflect a loss but the "parent" Hoya would look good. Even Sony sells their sensors to Sony camera....
Got to admit I'm guessing on Hoya/Pentax but it seems logical...
Subsidiary - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Subsidiaries are separate, distinct legal entities for the purposes of taxation and regulation. For this reason, they differ from divisions, which are businesses fully integrated within the main company, and not legally or otherwise distinct from it.

[RMabo]

Gruoso,

Hoya wants to sell lenses, because it's the lenses and other accessories they earn money on (lenses has higher margin than cameras). The *ist D-series plus the K100D and plus Samsung GX-1L and GX-1S is a bigger market than the K10D plus K100D Super (Samsung has not yet released their firmware update for the GX-10 that allows for SDM-compatibility). That is why I strongly believe Hoya will release SDM lenses with double autofocus systems - yes even consumer lenses - because the target market for supersonic only is too small. Kit lenses, that are sold with the camera, may be supersonic only, but for lenses that are seen as uppgrades or additions to the kit-lenses - I feel confident than they will be double autofocus system, or only screwdriven. Not only supersonic. Not at this stage.

Gruoso,

Hoya wants to sell lenses, because it's the lenses and other accessories they earn money on (lenses has higher margin than cameras). The *ist D-series plus the K100D and plus Samsung GX-1L and GX-1S is a bigger market than the K10D plus K100D Super (Samsung has not yet released their firmware update for the GX-10 that allows for SDM-compatibility). That is why I strongly believe Hoya will release SDM lenses with double autofocus systems - yes even consumer lenses - because the target market for supersonic only is too small. Kit lenses, that are sold with the camera, may be supersonic only, but for lenses that are seen as uppgrades or additions to the kit-lenses - I feel confident than they will be double autofocus system, or only screwdriven. Not only supersonic. Not at this stage.

Makes sense. I was thinking that the Pentax market will change towards SDM in the next 2 years since all the new models will support them and most of the users will have renewed their cameras by then. I dont see them releasing these lenses before that time frame. Besides, I dont know how much increases the cost of production to make those lenses with the dual system but if it is expensive then I will be surprised to see it at the consumer level. On the other side, if they are not greedy they will make a very good name for the years to come and they will benefit of it in the future but I might be a little optimistic

[and]

Also Pentax has a sort of tradition for backwards compability

[txbonds]

It's almost definitely announcements in January leading up to PMA. Benjikan was apparently expecting these announcements at the Salon de la Photo, but that clearly didn't happen. But given that announcements are forthcoming soon, there's really only one logical time.

And I think it's pretttty safe to assume six months or more to actual market.

In my opinion the new potential rebate dates of 10/18/07 to 01/31/08 might be telling of proof of announcements in January. Isn't PMA 08 around 01/31/08, which would also be an ideal time to either launch a new rebate, or to have the current rebate ending at least.

Just a thought............ but a new rebate with new cameras doubles the whammy a little.........

[anomaly]

I am really excited to see what they announce. Even full frame is still possible if they include a cropped sensor like in the Nikon D3.

Laser assisted autofocus would be a boon.

[RMabo]

Makes sense. I was thinking that the Pentax market will change towards SDM in the next 2 years since all the new models will support them and most of the users will have renewed their cameras by then.

I don't think that "most of the users" will change to new bodies within the next 2 years, I know that I won't be doing it. It is too expensive to change DSLR every 2nd year, and I don't feel the need for it. My first SLR was the Pentax P30 bought in 1988, I upgraded to the Pentax MZ-5 in 1996, then to the *ist DS in 2005, and I added the K10D late December 2007. My timeframe is "every fifth year"-perhaps. I am still using my *ist DS and I plan to continue be doing so until it destroys itself and goes "bazook". I see no reason to sell it just because it comes out new cameras, the image quality of my *ist DS did not change when I bought the K10D - it was still taking good images, and I believe it will be doing so for the next five years to come! I believe I am not the only one that are not planning to buy new DSLR's every 2nd year... If I do, I have no money left for lenses. I rather spend money on lenses than on cameras, because that is a more worthwile upgrade than minor changes in sensor technology (which you can't see anyway if you don't have a good lens!).

[nosnoop]

I am really excited to see what they announce. Even full frame is still possible if they include a cropped sensor like in the Nikon D3.

Sorry to wake you up from your dream , but no, the chance of announcing FF in Jan 08 is 0.

I don't think that "most of the users" will change to new bodies within the next 2 years, I know that I won't be doing it. It is too expensive to change DSLR every 2nd year, and I don't feel the need for it. My first SLR was the Pentax P30 bought in 1988, I upgraded to the Pentax MZ-5 in 1996, then to the *ist DS in 2005, and I added the K10D late December 2007. My timeframe is "every fifth year"-perhaps. I am still using my *ist DS and I plan to continue be doing so until it destroys itself and goes "bazook". I see no reason to sell it just because it comes out new cameras, the image quality of my *ist DS did not change when I bought the K10D - it was still taking good images, and I believe it will be doing so for the next five years to come! I believe I am not the only one that are not planning to buy new DSLR's every 2nd year... If I do, I have no money left for lenses. I rather spend money on lenses than on cameras, because that is a more worthwile upgrade than minor changes in sensor technology (which you can't see anyway if you don't have a good lens!).

Au contraire, mon amie,

You are an example of what I was speaking about. You had an *ist in 2005 and in less than 2 years you get yourself a K10D (which now support the SDM lenses). I know that not all the users will do it (actually I dont think I will) but I would say that many of them will. And you have to add also the new users. Now you can buy a K100d super for less than 500 with rebate and in 2 years the low entry level will be even cheaper. Whether or not this will affect to the next lenses is something that only in Pentax/Hoya know (plus some NDA holders)

[blende8]

Sorry to wake you up from your dream , but no, the chance of announcing FF in Jan 08 is 0.

How do you know?

[Ray Pulley]

Technically it's "Pentax became a 90.58%-owned subsidiary of HOYA." And as to division seperation I believe they are still doing this as a "failsafe"........
"The major conclusions in this announcement are that the Pentax name will remain, that Pentax's optical business will merge with Hoya's but that Pentax's current imaging systems division (that which is responsible for digital cameras) will continue."
Wouldn't make any sense not to make "profit" off selling blanks to the optical division. Just think about what would happen if a "product lens" tanked...... Pentax "imaging system" will reflect a loss but the "parent" Hoya would look good. Even Sony sells their sensors to Sony camera....
Got to admit I'm guessing on Hoya/Pentax but it seems logical...
Subsidiary - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Subsidiaries are separate, distinct legal entities for the purposes of taxation and regulation. For this reason, they differ from divisions, which are businesses fully integrated within the main company, and not legally or otherwise distinct from it.

Well, anything can be viewed as logical depending upon your point of view...

Given that Hoya owns the Hoya lens blank business and now the Pentax lens business, it really does not matter where you show the profits but tax law causes distortions in business decision making and there are PR (shareholders and the customer base) and market issues to consider as well. On the side of PR one would think that they will want to show that the new acquisition was a smart move and that they can quickly boost profits on those products they invested so much money in.

From a market perspective, if you want to take market share and grow the Pentax business (which includes many more lenses and lens assemblies than those used with our cameras) you would want to have better margins on those products so you could undersell the competition or at least compete aggressively at better margins and profits. If this sort of strategy was not what Hoya had in mind for both the Pentax medical and camera business, what was the point of the acquisition?

We also have no idea which parts of the Pentax business have already, or will soon end up in which parts of the Hoya business both operationally and legally. It could well be that the Pentax optical glass operations (including our camera lenses and all the other lenses Pentax supplies here and there) could end up as a part of the Hoya optical glass operations, functionally and legally. There is nothing magic about the Pentax name that automatically means that whatever was under the old Pentax name will remain so operationally or legally. Given the closed-mouth nature of Hoya so far, we may never know.

Frankly, without wading through (boring) legal documents and filings, some which might not even be available or complete as of this time, I guess we really do not know how the legal structure will end up either. I also cannot read Japanese

Obviously, this is a Japanese company and I cannot say I am any sort of expert in Japanese financial laws and regulations (nor do I believe Wikipedia is an authority here either, or that an English definition from same has any bearing on a Japanese corporate structure).

Regardless, I am sure Hoya will do whatever makes the most overall financial sense to them, but it is entirely possible that tax regulations might very well distort that decision in ways that might not seem to make sense from other perspectives.

Ray

[chirpy]

(Samsung has not yet released their firmware update for the GX-10 that allows for SDM-compatibility)

v1.30 has been out from Samsung for quite some time:
Samsung Digital Camera

"10 ) A compatibility with SDM lens(Called Ultrasonic Lens) made in PENTAX has been added."

[mutley]

Pentax has filed patents for a 16-135 lens, but it is unlikey to be only supersonic. If it has supersonic, it will surely have the screwdriven autofocus as well

That is fine as long as it is in the same price range as Nikons consumer 18-135mm zoom at about $250 since any increased cost of mechanical focus parts will be offset by the huge savings Pentax will get using Hoya glass compared to what Nikon pays.

This is exactly the type of added value Pentax can offer now if they'd like to compared to Nikon/Canon.

[RodConn]

That is fine as long as it is in the same price range as Nikons consumer 18-135mm zoom at about $250 since any increased cost of mechanical focus parts will be offset by the huge savings Pentax will get using Hoya glass compared to what Nikon pays.

This is exactly the type of added value Pentax can offer now if they'd like to compared to Nikon/Canon.

I am puzzled - Hoya is there to get a profit - I would suggest most companies expect each division to make a profit - I cannot see the Blanks division transferring at cost and just the Pentax division making their normal profit on the glass - this would mean a reduced profit on the overall glass from sand to finished lens.

This may be acceptable if you must 'dump' product on the market to quell a competitor but it is not practical for a company that must give a return to investors.

The advantages will probably be more subtle - shared R&D, early access to the latest glasses and technology, etc. These will not affect prices much but they may provide a better product faster.

Rod

[anomaly]

Sorry to wake you up from your dream , but no, the chance of announcing FF in Jan 08 is 0.

Why is that?