[Kunzite]

I doubt they bought Pentax to change their corporate philosophy.
From what they are saying, some of the reasons would be:
+ for imaging-related technology, with impact outside the consumer camera business. Factory Automation is a new big thing inside Ricoh, so is Security.
+ to make their camera business - until then a money losing hobby - "a solid business".

[monochrome]

Fine - I wouldn't disagree. But if you are already a camera-maker which is all of those things, then why buy Pentax? The whole thing still remains an enigma.

Patents (IBIS)? Underutilized production space? In-place business distribution systems? Market share in Asia and Japan? Was the price just too good to good to say no (P&E at depreciated value + inventory)?

There can be lots of reasons one company buys another that aren't evident to us, especially in the West.

For instance:

In 2005 Toyota bought part of GM's 20% stake in Fuji Heavy Industries, maker of Subaru, for a bit more than $300MM. Toyota wanted Subaru's all-wheel-drive technology and lithium ion battery patents, as well as access to underutilized manufacturing facilities worldwide, especially in the US. Toyota wanted to produce a rear wheel drive sports car and needed a facility. They saw an opportunity in a shuttered Subaru plant in Indiana (by itself worth more than the purchase price) and could re-badge the car as a Subaru as well (BRZ), the first rear-wheel-drive car Subaru would ever offer. Of course the financial crisis stretched everything out.

The circumstances were certainly different. Subaru wouldn't adapt to GM's systems and bureaucracy nor market GM-designed cars. GM didn't know what to do with Subaru's boxer engine and low center of gravity other than sell them as rebadged Saab cars and we know how that worked out.

Toyota was attracted by non-brand things that it needed and seems to have managed the culture differences better.

Sort of like Hoya and Pentax versus Ricoh and Pentax.

We just don't and won't know what Ricoh bought aside from the 3 lens mounts.

[Uluru]

Fine - I wouldn't disagree. But if you are already a camera-maker which is all of those things, then why buy Pentax? The whole thing still remains an enigma.

They got the repository of patents and new opportunities for peanuts. Pentax was on sale, almost for free; for 2% of the value of Nikon. That is a bargain. Only from MF Ricoh can gain more money than from selling cameras to end users, not to mention that lots of tech for cameras is a good testing ground for tech for use in the industry. Our problem is the one sided vision; we see the K-mount, some old lenses, etc. But Ricoh sees much more than that.

[IchabodCrane]

Patents (IBIS)? Underutilized production space? In-place business distribution systems? Market share in Asia and Japan? Was the price just too good to good to say no (P&E at depreciated value + inventory)?

There can be lots of reasons one company buys another that aren't evident to us, especially in the West.

For instance:

In 2005 Toyota bought part of GM's 20% stake in Fuji Heavy Industries, maker of Subaru, for a bit more than $300MM. Toyota wanted Subaru's all-wheel-drive technology and lithium ion battery patents, as well as access to underutilized manufacturing facilities worldwide, especially in the US. Toyota wanted to produce a rear wheel drive sports car and needed a facility. They saw an opportunity in a shuttered Subaru plant in Indiana (by itself worth more than the purchase price) and could re-badge the car as a Subaru as well (BRZ), the first rear-wheel-drive car Subaru would ever offer. Of course the financial crisis stretched everything out.

The circumstances were certainly different. Subaru wouldn't adapt to GM's systems and bureaucracy nor market GM-designed cars. GM didn't know what to do with Subaru's boxer engine and low center of gravity other than sell them as rebadged Saab cars and we know how that worked out.

Toyota was attracted by non-brand things that it needed and seems to have managed the culture differences better.

Sort of like Hoya and Pentax versus Ricoh and Pentax.

We just don't and won't know what Ricoh bought aside from the 3 lens mounts.

My experience is manufacturing companies rarely buy other companies just because they're cheap. Instead, it seems private capital investment firms are the one buying companies just because they're cheap. I guess that's my way of saying I don't think this was Ricoh's motivation.

[Kunzite]

If you read the entire paragraph you'll get: patents, production space, business distribution systems, market share at a price too good to say no.
Monochrome is not saying they did it without other reason than the price.

[mee]

Nonsense.

The real reason Ricoh bought Pentax is in order to keep the arm chair quarterbacking and Full Frame zealot postings at the Pentax Forums alive and well.

[monochrome]

If you read the entire paragraph you'll get: patents, production space, business distribution systems, market share at a price too good to say no.
Monochrome is not saying they did it without other reason than the price.

I think IC was agreeing with the possibility of any of the reasons except the likelihood of 'just-plain-cheap'.

[Kunzite]

So they were separate points? But then, we'd fall into the fallacy of a single cause...
After several years of trying to sell (now I believe the JVC episode was more than an unfounded rumor), it's not unlikely Hoya dropped the price.

[mecrox]

They got the repository of patents and new opportunities for peanuts. Pentax was on sale, almost for free; for 2% of the value of Nikon. That is a bargain. Only from MF Ricoh can gain more money than from selling cameras to end users, not to mention that lots of tech for cameras is a good testing ground for tech for use in the industry. Our problem is the one sided vision; we see the K-mount, some old lenses, etc. But Ricoh sees much more than that.

Lol, new opportunities for peanuts you say? I guess most folks would settle for new opportunities for Ricoh and Pentax to say what they are about and where they are going. No one really knows. Plenty speculate, but only Ricoh know. They do know, don't they?

[Kunzite]

Some of us have at least an idea about where they are going/intending to go. What I said about Factory Automation - that's public knowledge; then there is the roadmap, and even the interviews; and there's knowledge that's not yet made public. I'm sure there are one or two privileged people around, even if they're keeping (almost) quiet.
It's a mistake to assume everyone knows as little as you do.

[froeschle]

[...] Your assessment of the situation is extremely biased [...]

Perception always is biased by personal opinions and experience.
But there should be some facts to agree on.
Conclusions, however, also may differ widely [#].

[...] cultural misunderstanding [...]

Yes, one has to be aware of that, see e.g. also there.
Additionally, there are fine and subtle nuances.
I agree that the last answer is very close to a "no".

[...] I think they have far more important things to spend their time on. [...]

That again is an assessment .
OK, maybe that upcoming FF is more important - "looking for a good time to launch full-frame."

[...] And you might say that Nikon has managed to do it, but the Df is almost comically expensive for what it is. [...]

Nikon managed to do it also e.g. in the D7000/7100 .

[thibs]

Nikon managed to do it also e.g. in the D7000/7100 .

And got their old lens line working again wich was roughly the equivalent of Pentax A line of lenses.
Except the MZ60 AFAIK, all Pentax cams work perfectly with A lenses.

[froeschle]

And got their old lens line working again wich was roughly the equivalent of Pentax A line of lenses.

IIRC, Nikon AI lenses without CPU "communicate" only "mechanically" (like the K/M lenses + all lenses with aperture ring not set to the "A" position) and not "electronically" (like the A lenses + all lenses with aperture ring set to the "A" position). Thus, for this functionality, something similar as an aperture coupler had to be integrated.
http://www.throughthefmount.com/articles-back-olderlenses-dslr-8.jpg
However, several things are bit more complicated regarding the Nikon mount, as e.g. some coupling takes place "outside" the mount.

[lytrytyr]

However, several things are bit more complicated regarding the Nikon mount, as e.g. some coupling takes place "outside" the mount.

Ah, yes, the infamous rabbit ears.

[thibs]

IIRC, Nikon AI lenses without CPU "communicate" only "mechanically" (like the K/M lenses + all lenses with aperture ring not set to the "A" position) and not "electronically" (like the A lenses + all lenses with aperture ring set to the "A" position). Thus, for this functionality, something similar as an aperture coupler had to be integrated.
http://www.throughthefmount.com/articles-back-olderlenses-dslr-8.jpg
However, several things are bit more complicated regarding the Nikon mount, as e.g. some coupling takes place "outside" the mount.

Yeah right, but AI-S is 1982. Pentax A lenses is 1983.
What more do you need?