Ricoh to buy Pentax camera business from Hoya

ogl · 07-12-2011, 09:17 AM

Ricoh confirms the Leica mount module for GXR | Photo Rumors

said about m4/3 adapter for GXR

Blue · 07-12-2011, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by Asahiflex

And... the diaphragm actuation. Contacts alone are not enough...

That will be a hurdle. A manual aperture system could implement a system similar to the k mount m4/3 adapter that allows aperture adjustment on lens without aperture rings such as the DA ltd series.

audiobomber · 07-12-2011, 12:25 PM

Originally posted by ogl

Ricoh confirms the Leica mount module for GXR | Photo Rumors

said about m4/3 adapter for GXR

The m4/3 talk is strictly rumour and wishful thinking, not supported by any statement from Ricoh:

"The first rumors about a Micro Four Thirds module for Ricoh GXR system camera surfaced back in June. In the past, Ricoh has shown several prototypes of different cartridges, but have never hinted for a possible Micro Four Thirds solution. Ricoh’s GXR roadmap vaguely mentions that other “expansion units” will be available in 2011 without providing more details."

Personally I hope Ricoh/Pentax completely ignores m4/3 and concentrates on APS-C and/or full frame. An undersized 4/3 sensor is not interesting to me at all. The sale of Pentax to Ricoh has been in the works for a while. It seems likely the prototype cartridge will more likely be for a Pentax crossover, maybe APS-C MILC with K-compatible adaptor.

Blue · 07-12-2011, 12:32 PM

Originally posted by audiobomber

The m4/3 talk is strictly rumour and wishful thinking, not supported by any statement from Ricoh:

"The first rumors about a Micro Four Thirds module for Ricoh GXR system camera surfaced back in June. In the past, Ricoh has shown several prototypes of different cartridges, but have never hinted for a possible Micro Four Thirds solution. Ricoh’s GXR roadmap vaguely mentions that other “expansion units” will be available in 2011 without providing more details."

Personally I hope Ricoh/Pentax completely ignores m4/3 and concentrates on APS-C and/or full frame. An undersized 4/3 sensor is not interesting to me at all. The sale of Pentax to Ricoh has been in the works for a while. It seems likely the prototype cartridge will more likely be for a Pentax crossover, maybe APS-C MILC with K-compatible adaptor.

I agree. I already use my Da 21, 35, FA 77 ltd and A 50/1.2 on an e-p1.

RioRico · 07-12-2011, 12:58 PM

My suggestion about M-module plus K-etc adapters was in response to a comment about using MFL's. Those would be easy, and immediate. Modules for other mounts, with AF-SR-whatever, will take longer and cost more but will HAPPEN if demand is there (and yes, KAF3 will be among the first.). Maybe licensing issues would complicate doing EOS, NI, Alpha, or maybe not; m4/3 would be easier (legally) I think. IMHO whatever modules automate new mounts, will eat into sales of those other brands. Why stick with plastic Nikons when a single camera with multiple modules and adapters can take ALL other new and used lenses from ALL makers? GXR could just be THE universal platform.

eddie1960 · 07-12-2011, 01:21 PM

Originally posted by RioRico

My suggestion about M-module plus K-etc adapters was in response to a comment about using MFL's. Those would be easy, and immediate. Modules for other mounts, with AF-SR-whatever, will take longer and cost more but will HAPPEN if demand is there (and yes, KAF3 will be among the first.). Maybe licensing issues would complicate doing EOS, NI, Alpha, or maybe not; m4/3 would be easier (legally) I think. IMHO whatever modules automate new mounts, will eat into sales of those other brands. Why stick with plastic Nikons when a single camera with multiple modules and adapters can take ALL other new and used lenses from ALL makers? GXR could just be THE universal platform.

And that is what I find so appealing about it, though I think the implementation will evolve

uccemebug · 07-12-2011, 02:08 PM

Originally posted by RioRico

GXR could just be THE universal platform.

Clever Ricoh, holding their cards so close to their chests all this time. Their camera platform (which I once dismissed as 'ridiculous' on this forum back in September, while otherwise praising Ricoh) is suddenly going to look like a major contender. Now I'm thinking that Ricoh is the first camera manufacturer that's really pushing the possibilities of the digital technology. I wonder if their modular paper management system played a part in their thinking.

audiobomber · 07-12-2011, 02:35 PM

Originally posted by uccemebug

Clever Ricoh, holding their cards so close to their chests all this time. Their camera platform (which I once dismissed as 'ridiculous' on this forum back in September, while otherwise praising Ricoh) is suddenly going to look like a major contender. Now I'm thinking that Ricoh is the first camera manufacturer that's really pushing the possibilities of the digital technology. I wonder if their modular paper management system played a part in their thinking.

It's odd that the Fuji X100 caused such a stir, and the GXR system was mostly ignored or ridiculed. I've read a couple of comparisons of the two and the Ricoh seems a better camera in most ways. The Fuji is prettier, which I believe is its main claim to fame.

eddie1960 · 07-12-2011, 02:39 PM

Its a real departure in thinkong of how cameras should work and i think it takes time for that to kick in
Lousy distribution doesnt help ( from my perspective where i cant even buy one in canada)
Too bad really because the more i look st it the more i like it
Provided the m module isnt 2grand

stanleyk · 07-12-2011, 03:33 PM

Originally posted by audiobomber

It's odd that the Fuji X100 caused such a stir, and the GXR system was mostly ignored or ridiculed. I've read a couple of comparisons of the two and the Ricoh seems a better camera in most ways. The Fuji is prettier, which I believe is its main claim to fame.

I've actually used both cameras and would say that your assessment isn't very accurate. They are both very specific cameras and really aren't designed for the DSLR user. I think the GXR outperforms the X100 for black and white. The X100 has a built neutral density filter which allows you to use the wider apertures in most any situation. The GXR doesn't.

I own an X100 and will be buying a GXR in January. They are both great cameras. I ended up going with the Fuji because of the neutral density filters. I have never been disappointed with the purchase. It consistently provides stunning photos easily on par with the K5 with for example the 31mm.

I'll will say that if you are a DSLR user and like the flexibility of DSLR you will probably find yourself limited by either camera. However, for the right person either camera is an ideal solution since the image quality out of both is excellent.

Given the price of the GXR and the X100, I certainly wouldn't recommend one for an "I don't feel like lugging around a huge camera and giant zoom lens" today purchase. Get an Olympus XZ1 which is a great little camera and has no problems printing at 13 x 19 provided you don't push the ISO above 400. It has an outstanding f1.8 lens so that's not a problem.

philbaum · 07-12-2011, 03:37 PM

Originally posted by RioRico

My suggestion about M-module plus K-etc adapters was in response to a comment about using MFL's. Those would be easy, and immediate. Modules for other mounts, with AF-SR-whatever, will take longer and cost more but will HAPPEN if demand is there (and yes, KAF3 will be among the first.). Maybe licensing issues would complicate doing EOS, NI, Alpha, or maybe not; m4/3 would be easier (legally) I think. IMHO whatever modules automate new mounts, will eat into sales of those other brands. Why stick with plastic Nikons when a single camera with multiple modules and adapters can take ALL other new and used lenses from ALL makers? GXR could just be THE universal platform.

Very well explained! And what about those orphaned Canon and Nikon film lenses that won't work with new dslrs anymore. I'm not convinced that the camera will take too many sales away from the dslrs because a compact camera like the Ricoh will not have all the features built-into a full size camera. But compact cameras can be dang useful, especially with an aps sensor.

RonHendriks1966 · 07-13-2011, 08:20 AM - **3 Likes**

Don't know if any of this was already mentioned:

and

Are from an Investor Relations document: http://www.ricoh.com/IR/data/pre/pdf/ir_pre2011.pdf

So I wonder what p[lace Digital Camera division will get in the future for Ricoh. Maybe somethings we never have thougt of before? Maybe our future is also in the cloud!

uccemebug · 07-13-2011, 08:47 AM

Originally posted by RonHendriks1966

Are from an Investor Relations document: http://www.ricoh.com/IR/data/pre/pdf/ir_pre2011.pdf

So I wonder what p[lace Digital Camera division will get in the future for Ricoh. Maybe somethings we never have thougt of before? Maybe our future is also in the cloud!

It's interesting that the position the camera unit in their "future growth" section and place it on the border between products and services. I like your cloud theory. A storage/sharing facility would have to be something tightly coupled to the camera indeed: there are GXR modules for many things, that could be the foundation? One thing I could see coming from that mix is a direct camera -> sales solution, for instance, where Ricoh takes a cut of everything sold. Much the way that smugmug (or even blurb) operate, but all provided in house. Camera -> Ricoh -> distributed print and delivery would seem to be something that would appeal to Ricoh.

audiobomber · 07-13-2011, 09:18 AM

Originally posted by stanleyk

I've actually used both cameras and would say that your assessment isn't very accurate. They are both very specific cameras and really aren't designed for the DSLR user. I think the GXR outperforms the X100 for black and white. The X100 has a built neutral density filter which allows you to use the wider apertures in most any situation. The GXR doesn't.

My view on one vs the other may be biased since the comparisons I read were linked by posters in the DPR Ricoh forum. Both are highly rated. The points in favour of the Ricoh were the much faster and better user interface (especially ISO control) and better focussing abilities, in manual and AF mode. The Ricoh is reputed to be more suitable as a photography tool. The X100 has (slightly?) better DR and sensitivity. Saying it's equivalent to a K5 and FA 31mm sounds like a stretch, since the sensor is closer to K-r level than K5. The lens seems very good, but supposedly soft at large apertures and close focussing distances.

My point stands though. It's odd to me that the Fuji made such a big splash, and the Ricoh was dissed, when they appear to be similar in more ways than they are different. I honestly think this is because of the Fuji's cool retro look vs the Ricoh's utilitarian styling. The Ricoh is supposedly more solidly built. Personally I wouldn't go for the Fuji, because as someone said in the Ricoh forum, the X100 is a camera, the GXR is a system. I'm not happy with having only one focal length for long. My lightest kit is a K-x with 15mm and 40mm lenses in a little fanny pack.

PS A built in neutral density filter seems an odd reason to favour a camera. Don't these cameras accept screw in filters?

**Aristophanes** · 07-13-2011, 12:04 PM

Originally posted by uccemebug

Clever Ricoh, holding their cards so close to their chests all this time. Their camera platform (which I once dismissed as 'ridiculous' on this forum back in September, while otherwise praising Ricoh) is suddenly going to look like a major contender.

I think the complete opposite.

Ricoh bought Pentax imaging precisely because the GSX is a no-sales product with very high price tag and production costs in a from factor anathema to the conservative photographic industry. The whole modular "buy a lens, get a sensor" biz model is wasteful, unnecessary design overkill.

Ricoh is nowhere near being a "major player" until its sales numbers go somewhere, which they have not. In fact, they are virtually non-existent. The Ricoh GSX doesn't even have a group on Flickr to itself, and only a few hundred souls even post anything related to Ricoh, with months of inactivity between posts. The GSX has generated literally no industry buzz, nor have any of Ricoh's other models, especially outside of Japan.

I think Ricoh bought Pentax Imaging to revitalize the company's entire camera line and literally replace the Ricoh camera group lock, stock, and barrel. The Q and the GSX go in completely different design directions. The GSX is financially, technically, and aesthetically noncompetitive. This takeover is no marriage of Ricoh cameras with Pentax imaging, but a takeover by the latter's concepts of the former's prowess in at least getting its products recognized by the mainstream, generating some industry interest.

Prediction: RIP GSX and most other Ricoh models. All Ricoh tech integrated into the Pentax Imaging brand and design concepts.

07-12-2011, 03:33 PM	#655
stanleyk Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Taylor, Texas Posts: 1,018	Originally posted by audiobomber It's odd that the Fuji X100 caused such a stir, and the GXR system was mostly ignored or ridiculed. I've read a couple of comparisons of the two and the Ricoh seems a better camera in most ways. The Fuji is prettier, which I believe is its main claim to fame. I've actually used both cameras and would say that your assessment isn't very accurate. They are both very specific cameras and really aren't designed for the DSLR user. I think the GXR outperforms the X100 for black and white. The X100 has a built neutral density filter which allows you to use the wider apertures in most any situation. The GXR doesn't. I own an X100 and will be buying a GXR in January. They are both great cameras. I ended up going with the Fuji because of the neutral density filters. I have never been disappointed with the purchase. It consistently provides stunning photos easily on par with the K5 with for example the 31mm. I'll will say that if you are a DSLR user and like the flexibility of DSLR you will probably find yourself limited by either camera. However, for the right person either camera is an ideal solution since the image quality out of both is excellent. Given the price of the GXR and the X100, I certainly wouldn't recommend one for an "I don't feel like lugging around a huge camera and giant zoom lens" today purchase. Get an Olympus XZ1 which is a great little camera and has no problems printing at 13 x 19 provided you don't push the ISO above 400. It has an outstanding f1.8 lens so that's not a problem. Last edited by stanleyk; 07-12-2011 at 03:34 PM. Reason: spelling

07-13-2011, 09:18 AM	#659
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Originally posted by stanleyk I've actually used both cameras and would say that your assessment isn't very accurate. They are both very specific cameras and really aren't designed for the DSLR user. I think the GXR outperforms the X100 for black and white. The X100 has a built neutral density filter which allows you to use the wider apertures in most any situation. The GXR doesn't. My view on one vs the other may be biased since the comparisons I read were linked by posters in the DPR Ricoh forum. Both are highly rated. The points in favour of the Ricoh were the much faster and better user interface (especially ISO control) and better focussing abilities, in manual and AF mode. The Ricoh is reputed to be more suitable as a photography tool. The X100 has (slightly?) better DR and sensitivity. Saying it's equivalent to a K5 and FA 31mm sounds like a stretch, since the sensor is closer to K-r level than K5. The lens seems very good, but supposedly soft at large apertures and close focussing distances. My point stands though. It's odd to me that the Fuji made such a big splash, and the Ricoh was dissed, when they appear to be similar in more ways than they are different. I honestly think this is because of the Fuji's cool retro look vs the Ricoh's utilitarian styling. The Ricoh is supposedly more solidly built. Personally I wouldn't go for the Fuji, because as someone said in the Ricoh forum, the X100 is a camera, the GXR is a system. I'm not happy with having only one focal length for long. My lightest kit is a K-x with 15mm and 40mm lenses in a little fanny pack. PS A built in neutral density filter seems an odd reason to favour a camera. Don't these cameras accept screw in filters? Last edited by audiobomber; 07-13-2011 at 10:29 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pentax Lens Compatibility with Ricoh camera?	Chairman_Xi	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	5	03-08-2011 07:56 PM
Hoya Sells Pentax-Brand Survey Instrument Business	Biro	Pentax News and Rumors	18	12-12-2009 02:30 AM
HOYA CEO admits not keeping Pentax camera division in the HOYA group?	yakiniku	Pentax News and Rumors	61	10-18-2009 02:15 PM
If Hoya still buys Pentax and quits camera business..	RiceHigh	Pentax News and Rumors	51	05-17-2007 07:43 AM

07-12-2011, 09:17 AM	#646
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	Ricoh confirms the Leica mount module for GXR \| Photo Rumors said about m4/3 adapter for GXR

07-12-2011, 11:59 AM	#647
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by Asahiflex And... the diaphragm actuation. Contacts alone are not enough... That will be a hurdle. A manual aperture system could implement a system similar to the k mount m4/3 adapter that allows aperture adjustment on lens without aperture rings such as the DA ltd series.

07-12-2011, 12:25 PM	#648
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Originally posted by ogl Ricoh confirms the Leica mount module for GXR \| Photo Rumors said about m4/3 adapter for GXR The m4/3 talk is strictly rumour and wishful thinking, not supported by any statement from Ricoh: "The first rumors about a Micro Four Thirds module for Ricoh GXR system camera surfaced back in June. In the past, Ricoh has shown several prototypes of different cartridges, but have never hinted for a possible Micro Four Thirds solution. Ricoh’s GXR roadmap vaguely mentions that other “expansion units” will be available in 2011 without providing more details." Personally I hope Ricoh/Pentax completely ignores m4/3 and concentrates on APS-C and/or full frame. An undersized 4/3 sensor is not interesting to me at all. The sale of Pentax to Ricoh has been in the works for a while. It seems likely the prototype cartridge will more likely be for a Pentax crossover, maybe APS-C MILC with K-compatible adaptor.

07-12-2011, 12:32 PM	#649
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by audiobomber The m4/3 talk is strictly rumour and wishful thinking, not supported by any statement from Ricoh: "The first rumors about a Micro Four Thirds module for Ricoh GXR system camera surfaced back in June. In the past, Ricoh has shown several prototypes of different cartridges, but have never hinted for a possible Micro Four Thirds solution. Ricoh’s GXR roadmap vaguely mentions that other “expansion units” will be available in 2011 without providing more details." Personally I hope Ricoh/Pentax completely ignores m4/3 and concentrates on APS-C and/or full frame. An undersized 4/3 sensor is not interesting to me at all. The sale of Pentax to Ricoh has been in the works for a while. It seems likely the prototype cartridge will more likely be for a Pentax crossover, maybe APS-C MILC with K-compatible adaptor. I agree. I already use my Da 21, 35, FA 77 ltd and A 50/1.2 on an e-p1.

07-12-2011, 12:58 PM	#650
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	My suggestion about M-module plus K-etc adapters was in response to a comment about using MFL's. Those would be easy, and immediate. Modules for other mounts, with AF-SR-whatever, will take longer and cost more but will HAPPEN if demand is there (and yes, KAF3 will be among the first.). Maybe licensing issues would complicate doing EOS, NI, Alpha, or maybe not; m4/3 would be easier (legally) I think. IMHO whatever modules automate new mounts, will eat into sales of those other brands. Why stick with plastic Nikons when a single camera with multiple modules and adapters can take ALL other new and used lenses from ALL makers? GXR could just be THE universal platform.

07-12-2011, 01:21 PM	#651
eddie1960 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,666	Originally posted by RioRico My suggestion about M-module plus K-etc adapters was in response to a comment about using MFL's. Those would be easy, and immediate. Modules for other mounts, with AF-SR-whatever, will take longer and cost more but will HAPPEN if demand is there (and yes, KAF3 will be among the first.). Maybe licensing issues would complicate doing EOS, NI, Alpha, or maybe not; m4/3 would be easier (legally) I think. IMHO whatever modules automate new mounts, will eat into sales of those other brands. Why stick with plastic Nikons when a single camera with multiple modules and adapters can take ALL other new and used lenses from ALL makers? GXR could just be THE universal platform. And that is what I find so appealing about it, though I think the implementation will evolve

07-12-2011, 02:08 PM	#652
uccemebug Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Tokyo Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 962	Originally posted by RioRico GXR could just be THE universal platform. Clever Ricoh, holding their cards so close to their chests all this time. Their camera platform (which I once dismissed as 'ridiculous' on this forum back in September, while otherwise praising Ricoh) is suddenly going to look like a major contender. Now I'm thinking that Ricoh is the first camera manufacturer that's really pushing the possibilities of the digital technology. I wonder if their modular paper management system played a part in their thinking.

07-12-2011, 02:35 PM	#653
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Originally posted by uccemebug Clever Ricoh, holding their cards so close to their chests all this time. Their camera platform (which I once dismissed as 'ridiculous' on this forum back in September, while otherwise praising Ricoh) is suddenly going to look like a major contender. Now I'm thinking that Ricoh is the first camera manufacturer that's really pushing the possibilities of the digital technology. I wonder if their modular paper management system played a part in their thinking. It's odd that the Fuji X100 caused such a stir, and the GXR system was mostly ignored or ridiculed. I've read a couple of comparisons of the two and the Ricoh seems a better camera in most ways. The Fuji is prettier, which I believe is its main claim to fame.

07-12-2011, 02:39 PM	#654
eddie1960 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,666	Its a real departure in thinkong of how cameras should work and i think it takes time for that to kick in Lousy distribution doesnt help ( from my perspective where i cant even buy one in canada) Too bad really because the more i look st it the more i like it Provided the m module isnt 2grand

07-12-2011, 03:37 PM	#656
philbaum Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA Posts: 3,659	Originally posted by RioRico My suggestion about M-module plus K-etc adapters was in response to a comment about using MFL's. Those would be easy, and immediate. Modules for other mounts, with AF-SR-whatever, will take longer and cost more but will HAPPEN if demand is there (and yes, KAF3 will be among the first.). Maybe licensing issues would complicate doing EOS, NI, Alpha, or maybe not; m4/3 would be easier (legally) I think. IMHO whatever modules automate new mounts, will eat into sales of those other brands. Why stick with plastic Nikons when a single camera with multiple modules and adapters can take ALL other new and used lenses from ALL makers? GXR could just be THE universal platform. Very well explained! And what about those orphaned Canon and Nikon film lenses that won't work with new dslrs anymore. I'm not convinced that the camera will take too many sales away from the dslrs because a compact camera like the Ricoh will not have all the features built-into a full size camera. But compact cameras can be dang useful, especially with an aps sensor.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-13-2011, 08:20 AM - 3 Likes	#657
RonHendriks1966 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,675	Don't know if any of this was already mentioned: and Are from an Investor Relations document: http://www.ricoh.com/IR/data/pre/pdf/ir_pre2011.pdf So I wonder what p[lace Digital Camera division will get in the future for Ricoh. Maybe somethings we never have thougt of before? Maybe our future is also in the cloud!

07-13-2011, 08:47 AM	#658
uccemebug Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Tokyo Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 962	Originally posted by RonHendriks1966 Are from an Investor Relations document: http://www.ricoh.com/IR/data/pre/pdf/ir_pre2011.pdf So I wonder what p[lace Digital Camera division will get in the future for Ricoh. Maybe somethings we never have thougt of before? Maybe our future is also in the cloud! It's interesting that the position the camera unit in their "future growth" section and place it on the border between products and services. I like your cloud theory. A storage/sharing facility would have to be something tightly coupled to the camera indeed: there are GXR modules for many things, that could be the foundation? One thing I could see coming from that mix is a direct camera -> sales solution, for instance, where Ricoh takes a cut of everything sold. Much the way that smugmug (or even blurb) operate, but all provided in house. Camera -> Ricoh -> distributed print and delivery would seem to be something that would appeal to Ricoh.

07-13-2011, 12:04 PM	#660
Aristophanes Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Rankin Inlet, Nunavut Photos: Albums Posts: 3,948	Originally posted by uccemebug Clever Ricoh, holding their cards so close to their chests all this time. Their camera platform (which I once dismissed as 'ridiculous' on this forum back in September, while otherwise praising Ricoh) is suddenly going to look like a major contender. I think the complete opposite. Ricoh bought Pentax imaging precisely because the GSX is a no-sales product with very high price tag and production costs in a from factor anathema to the conservative photographic industry. The whole modular "buy a lens, get a sensor" biz model is wasteful, unnecessary design overkill. Ricoh is nowhere near being a "major player" until its sales numbers go somewhere, which they have not. In fact, they are virtually non-existent. The Ricoh GSX doesn't even have a group on Flickr to itself, and only a few hundred souls even post anything related to Ricoh, with months of inactivity between posts. The GSX has generated literally no industry buzz, nor have any of Ricoh's other models, especially outside of Japan. I think Ricoh bought Pentax Imaging to revitalize the company's entire camera line and literally replace the Ricoh camera group lock, stock, and barrel. The Q and the GSX go in completely different design directions. The GSX is financially, technically, and aesthetically noncompetitive. This takeover is no marriage of Ricoh cameras with Pentax imaging, but a takeover by the latter's concepts of the former's prowess in at least getting its products recognized by the mainstream, generating some industry interest. Prediction: RIP GSX and most other Ricoh models. All Ricoh tech integrated into the Pentax Imaging brand and design concepts.