[Aristophanes]

Heh! Touche'

Yum or Pepsi, in the end it all still comes out as sh**

[anthony mazzeri]

Not a single engineer designing a Pentax branded product, during the almost 50 years of hard work under Asahi Optical, or during the ownership by Hoya, worked for Pentax. They all worked on Pentax.

And history shows that after all that time, it was actually bad karma to name the company itself Pentax - after 64 successful years as Asahi Optical Ltd, it survived a mere 5 years before ceasing to exist as a company altogether when they changed the name to Pentax.

It went from this (from Wiki):

• The company was renamed Pentax Corporation in 2002. It was one of the world's largest optical companies, producing still cameras, binoculars, spectacle lenses, and a variety of other optical instruments. In 2004 Pentax had about 6000 employees.

To this just a few years later:

• Hoya closed the Pentax-owned factory in Tokyo, and moved most of their operations to Southeast Asia. All professional (DA*) and consumer (DA, D-FA) lenses are produced in Vietnam, whereas DSLR cameras are produced in Philippines.

Lesson: don't call the company Pentax.

[anthony mazzeri]

It is not only a name change which rise some questions in my mind. There are 3 years in which we saw only minor updates in the DSLR line. And this words, ''consumer oriented products'' from the Ricoh announcement. What did they want to say?

99.99% of Ricoh's operations is non-retail business to business eg corporate archiving and photocopiers etc, so 'consumer products' is what individuals buy = all cameras, even 'pro' ones.

Not actually having an established consumer retail network to distribute their cameras (unlike Sony or Panasonic) has always been Ricoh's weakest point and one of the reasons they said they bought Pentax' operations. It's why so many people have never seen a Ricoh camera in a store in the USA for instance. So to me, renaming all the retail distributors to Ricoh now is actually a good sign that Ricoh HQ is now finally seriously committing to expanding their consumer operations by putting their full corporate name behind it.

[Frater]

renaming all the retail distributors to Ricoh now is actually a good sign that Ricoh HQ is now finally seriously committing to expanding their consumer operations by putting their full corporate name behind it.

But let's not forget, all that is speculative (has to be).

The reasons for the renaming of their legal entity could have been much simpler than we think, as it has been pointed out before in this thread.

E.g. it could have plain contractual or other legal reasons, so it may have been obligatory not voluntary.

Or, even simpler, and not unlikely neither, they wanted to eradicate the risk of being pronounced or eventually nicknamed as "the P.R.I.C.ks" by the optical industry and in the consumer community (non-native English readers may have to look up its alternative meaning tagged as [vulgar] in dictionaries).
I'm sure this nicknaming would have occured sooner or later in forums and blogs, at least where CaNikonians are participating.

But we don't know the true, the driving reason, that would require insider knowledge.

And as others pointed out before, the concern is probably not just the legal entity name change itself. That's probably rather an incidental trigger than the foundation of the rising concerns of some. The deeper problem is probably not the renaming announcement, but, that the eager wait for announcements of a different kind hasn't been satisfied yet. And every unsatisfying announcement, like this one here, just reminds everyone about that.

I'd say, if Ricoh were showing off trustworthy innovatitveness (or if they will do so in the very short term) (and no, with that I don't mean just body shape tweaks or body color options), then they could rename to whatever they are fancy, and nobody was concerned too much.

---

Last edited by Frater; 07-04-2013 at 02:58 AM.

[bossa]

State law.

I was joking when I typed the bit about the bikers audacity.. but I doubt the LAW makes the kiddie streamers compulsory on your handle bars.. right?

PS. Only someone already brain damaged would ride a bike like that without a helmet anyway.

PS2.. I am assuming that the person on the bike isn't really YOU.. but if it is.. everything I said was meant as a joke and not a personal attack.

...
PSZ: That bike would never be allowed on the road in Oz... those handle bars...

[Kunzite]

I had intended to buy a Pentax 10-17mm this week, to complet my line of lenses. But now I have delayed that purchase. After I've spend more than 4000 euros, it's a problem of trust. A big one for me. And I think that I'm not the only one.

Trust? Trust in what? That Ricoh will keep the Pentax Ricoh Imaging Company name? This was never promised. What was promised is that Pentax will continue, which stands true.
Then, maybe trust that Hoya would invest money in Pentax, instead of fund-starving them and preparing them for sale? Trust that Sparx Asset Management would care about Pentax, not just wanting to make some quick money? That they wouldn't support and facilitate a hostile takeover?
It's amazing how people are talking about losing trust from such a small issue, even refusing to buy products they wanted (yeah, that helps a lot...)

But I agree with you. The idea finally must be materialised in some new form.
Now it's early July. Let's give them all the time until Christmas to give us that new they have been working on.
Let's go even further and give them a luxury of a pre-announcement only, clearly shown but that will materialise in early 2014.

Practically, they have only 3-4 months left to show off. We've waited for 2+ years, extra 3-4 months won't add any significant difference to our waiting. If they don't introduce anything really new in 2013, but only very minor cosmetic tweaks like the K50/K500 or Q7, I think we can almost safely say that Ricoh has severely damaged the Pentax brand.

A good decision

I agree with Sony somewhat "destroying" Minolta's heritage, making their cameras more of electronic products (i.e. closer to what they were used selling). As a business, they're relatively successful though. If Samsung were to buy Pentax (an unlikely scenario discussed around the net), it would've been probably the same.
I doubt that we're risking the same with Ricoh. They definitely won't change cameras to resembles copiers or something

By the way, I like your calling Pentax an idiom. Indeed, it's the idea/philosophy of Pentax I want to survive (and I'm sure it will), not a company name. Well, I also want the brand to survive, just because Pentax sounds good (and, again, I'm sure it will).

[Clavius]

I had intended to buy a Pentax 10-17mm this week, to complet my line of lenses. But now I have delayed that purchase. After I've spend more than 4000 euros, it's a problem of trust. A big one for me. And I think that I'm not the only one.

You need to accept that you cannot trust in camera brands not changing their policy. Even if they make all kinds of promisses.

They only way to play it somewhat safe is to invest in high quality lenses with an open source mount. Lenses can still last a lifetime, what you hang behind them is disposable, and always temporarily.

[Kunzite]

Clavius, but what policy was changed, and what exactly they promised?

[Traditional]

... They only way to play it somewhat safe is to invest in high quality lenses with an open source mount. Lenses can still last a lifetime, what you hang behind them is disposable, and always temporarily.

May I ask, what brand produces cameras with an open source mount?

[Clavius]

May I ask, what brand produces cameras with an open source mount?

M-mount is pretty much open source. And anybody can make M-42, etc... Why do you think CZ is making M-42 mount lenses again? There is a trend going on.

As long as a CZ lens will last, you'll be able to hang any mirrorless camera behind them. Be it a NEX, GXR or any 3/4 camera.

[thibs]

M-mount is pretty much open source. And anybody can make M-42, etc... Why do you think CZ is making M-42 mount lenses again? There is a trend going on.

As long as a CZ lens will last, you'll be able to hang any mirrorless camera behind them. Be it a NEX, GXR or any 3/4 camera.

Deciding on changing a mount to open source and using a mount whose patents are no longer enforceable is completely different.

[Clavius]

Deciding on changing a mount to open source and using a mount whose patents are no longer enforceable is completely different.

For the user? No, not in any way. (Please read what was being discussed.)

[JimmyDranox]

I saw their is a little dispute after some of my posts, but I don't want to argue with anybody, because everyone has a point of view, and is OK.

What I want is a clear statement from Ricoh about their plans for Pentax, and especially, about the K mount. Not that mambo-jambo they usually do, not something like their decision about FF, which wasn't in their plans, but is was, or it is, or will be, that nobody understand anything for sure.

Am I asking too much?

[blacknosugar]

The company’s goal is to leverage the tremendous strength and awareness of the Ricoh brand

The what now...?
'Don't they make photocopiers or something?'

If you look at the camera finder by brand page on flickr, Pentax are languishing in 10th place whereas Ricoh are trailing down in 19th position after those camera makers Blackberry and Motorola!
Flickr: Camera Finder

[Kunzite]

JimmyDranox:
I don't want to argue with you, either, except maybe about the brand of beer - if you'd pass through Bucharest, maybe we'd even "organize" one of the Pentax meetings which we used to have.

What kind of "clear statement"? We know Pentax is here to stay, so is the K-mount; we know they intention is to grow Pentax, gradually - it will take some time. What's missing are the details, e.g. what kind of products and when.
Please understand there isn't much they would tell us, ahead of time.