[IchabodCrane]

Which of those hardware items (aside from the cars, that Google most decidedly did not manufacture) is not Motorola? (Which my tend to support my point about Ricoh growing by acquisition.

You all are just picking at what you think are little tiny inconsistencies in my statemnts to avoid the main point - Define success so we can discuss failure in context; and tell me why Ricoh can NOT make Pentax #3 in the intermediate term (which I define as roughly 5 years). And you are only doing it to be cute and argumentative and negative about Pentax, which is so the rage on this Forum.

All I ever read here is what they've done wrong; what crap they are; how they're doomed; then how their pricing policy (which is virtually identical in strategy to that of Nikon) is unfair to all their customers (and they are doomed, I say) and all wrong. But they don't have any products that are good (List: their failures point by point) or any marketing or any market share or .... well, anything but a few old lens designs from the bygone days of film.

OK then - what should they do?

Can't say, can you?

They have a plan. They're executing the plan. They think it will work and they'll be the #3 camera maker. Maybe so, maybe no, but it sure as hell beats whatever they were doing before.

It's already been answered. Ricoh has defined success for themselves as "dominating the market" (if you're accurately quoting them). That translates to #1 camera manufacturer with a 60% or greater market share, something not even Canon has achieved yet.

Who thinks they will meet that goal?

[Kunzite]

Which of those hardware items (aside from the cars, that Google most decidedly did not manufacture) is not Motorola? (Which my tend to support my point about Ricoh growing by acquisition.

The LG, Asus, HTC, Samsung ones, I'd guess?

I don't think Pentax Ricoh can grow much by M&A; acquiring any major company (let's suppose for a moment that Olympus would have to sell their camera division) would only generate internal competition, much more than e.g. acquiring Gestetner. The added value, if any, would make it not worth the effort.
Maybe small, localized acquisitions would still be worthwhile; e.g. some software company specialized in firmware/image processing, small makers with interesting patents etc. But I think the growth will be largely due to Pentax Ricoh's own efforts.

About Pentax becoming #3 in ~5 years or not, I'd guess it depends on how do we count. If compacts are included, and if we're counting volume instead of value it would be very difficult. If we're talking about DSLRs, should be quite easy to achieve. Anything in between it's up to debate...

By the way, as a programmer I have to say software is a real product, the most complex humankind had ever designed, even though it's not hardware OTOH, unlike cameras the software industry allows one company to grow very fast - from nothing to an important player. There's no "Google" of the camera market.

[boriscleto]

Which of those hardware items (aside from the cars, that Google most decidedly did not manufacture) is not Motorola? (Which my tend to support my point about Ricoh growing by acquisition.

Google has invented the most effective birth control ever...



And this is a Google project, no acquisitions here.

[Aristophanes]

Except it doesn't show more detail than other advanced compacts, the slow zoom eats up its sensor size advantage at the long end, and it has Sony controls.

I beg to differ. The sensor size is vastly superior in low light simply due to size relative to FL and f/stop. It creams the Q.

Pentax made a system camera around a small sensor. Sony (and soon Canon and Nikon and Fuji) are making compacts with large sensors. And may even branch out into system cameras with 1" sensors that rival compacts in size (Nikon is already mostly there. Hmmm.....

The biggest problem is price. The Nikon D3200 with kit lens is selling for something like $425.

[tclausen]

By the way, as a programmer I have to say software is a real product, the most complex humankind had ever designed, even though it's not hardware

Actually.....the most complex thing that humankind has ever constructed is the Internet: the number of links in the Internet vastly exceeds the number of synaptic connections in the human brain.....

Interestingly, if you scale up the human brain to the size of the planet, then information propagation across the internet and across the resulting "planet-sized brain" would also be equivalent

[monochrome]

since they have over 54,000 employees working in over 70 locations in more than 40 countries.

What do all those people make? What do they do?

Look, I understand the knowledge industry. I understand photons, I get it. Hell, I won the stock, but what does Google do? Which of the brands you listed earlier is manufactured by Google? Those companies do things. They make things that are durable - they aren't ephemeral.

And what about Savin, Lanier, Rex-Rotary, Monroe, Nashuatec, and most recently IKON. Although the Monroe brand was discontinued, products continue to be marketed worldwide under the remaining brand names? Like it or not, they're all Ricoh now (post-restructuring), as would Olympus or Sigma be, as will Pentax be.

We're still off-topic. What is success? Why can't Pentax make things that people want to buy and then convince people to buy them - over the next five or so years? I think the problem isn't convincing people, the problem is convincing us - and they know it, so they're not going to try.

[jogiba]

I beg to differ. The sensor size is vastly superior in low light simply due to size relative to FL and f/stop. It creams the Q.

Pentax made a system camera around a small sensor. Sony (and soon Canon and Nikon and Fuji) are making compacts with large sensors. And may even branch out into system cameras with 1" sensors that rival compacts in size (Nikon is already mostly there. Hmmm.....

The biggest problem is price. The Nikon D3200 with kit lens is selling for something like $425.

Since the Sony RX100 street price has stayed the same since it came out last year because of high demand that is not a problem for Sony. The Pentax K-01 cost me $749 last year and the price dropped to $249 so that is good news for buyers who waited but not for Pentax. The Q with 02 zoom dropped even more to $239.99 from $900 !

[jogiba]

What do all those people make? What do they do?

Look, I understand the knowledge industry. I understand photons, I get it. Hell, I won the stock, but what does Google do? Which of the brands you listed earlier is manufactured by Google? Those companies do things. They make things that are durable - they aren't ephemeral.

And what about Savin, Lanier, Rex-Rotary, Monroe, Nashuatec, and most recently IKON. Although the Monroe brand was discontinued, products continue to be marketed worldwide under the remaining brand names? Like it or not, they're all Ricoh now (post-restructuring), as would Olympus or Sigma be, as will Pentax be.

We're still off-topic. What is success? Why can't Pentax make things that people want to buy and then convince people to buy them - over the next five or so years? I think the problem isn't convincing people, the problem is convincing us - and they know it, so they're not going to try.

Keep digging, your getting deeper.

[ElJamoquio]

At 28mm eqiv ? What is the Pentax Q 02 zoom at the wide end ?

I was assuming their 10.4mm was equivalent to 28 mm.

1.8*28/10.4

For the Q, it's whatever F/stop the Q has at 28 equivalent*5.5.

The Q isn't fast, that's for sure. But neither is the Sony by my (what I think is the most reasonable) definition.

[kenafein]

I was assuming their 10.4mm was equivalent to 28 mm.

1.8*28/10.4

For the Q, it's whatever F/stop the Q has at 28 equivalent*5.5.

The Q isn't fast, that's for sure. But neither is the Sony by my (what I think is the most reasonable) definition.

It is fast. 1.8 is 1.8 in terms of exposure. DOF is a whole other issue.

[Aristophanes]

Since the Sony RX100 street price has stayed the same since it came out last year because of high demand that is not a problem for Sony. The Pentax K-01 cost me $749 last year and the price dropped to $249 so that is good news for buyers who waited but not for Pentax. The Q with 02 zoom dropped even more to $239.99 from $900 !

Let's be clear the bargain bin K-01price is a result of its poor reviews, awkward styling, and experimental nature.

The Q initial pricing was demented. Japanese firms have almost totally lost out on the smartphone market and have been trying to maintain some parity in the electronics sector through ridiculous pricing schemes. The wild price fluctuations are not a sign of strength, but weakness, lack of direction, and inability to read the market.

[ElJamoquio]

It is fast. 1.8 is 1.8 in terms of exposure. DOF is a whole other issue.

Keeping the aperture the same will make both pictures exposed the same, but it will create two vastly different pictures.




IMO the appropriate way to compare two systems (APS-C/FF) is to:

1) See the advantages and disadvantages of taking the same picture
2) See how many 'other' pictures one system can take (FF) that the other can't.

By keeping the aperture the same you're forcing both of those two things to be combined... I think that just muddies the waters.

[philbaum]

.... and inability to read the market.

Thats the root cause, perhaps :-) Speculation...but i doubt that Pentax - Japan gives much if any credibility to feedback from their international subsidiaries. From what i remember, the K01 was not initially well received, even from their own base. A smart company would figure out what went wrong and fix the root cause problem so that it wasn't repeated.

Did Pentax fix the root cause problem - hard to tell. K30, K5iis are all good moves IMO.

[Kunzite]

Actually.....the most complex thing that humankind has ever constructed is the Internet: the number of links in the Internet vastly exceeds the number of synaptic connections in the human brain.....

The Internet is not a single "product", but an entire "ecosystem" of software, hardware and stored data.

[thibs]

It's already been answered. Ricoh has defined success for themselves as "dominating the market" (if you're accurately quoting them). That translates to #1 camera manufacturer with a 60% or greater market share, something not even Canon has achieved yet.

Who actually defined market dominance by this 60% market non sense?
You don't need 60% to dominate. Canon and Nikon or both dominant companies in DSLR part of the market and so is Micro4:3 and NEX in mirrorless.