[jlstrawman]

The pot is easily stirred here.

Stirred by the same people, over, and over, and over, and over, ................
Sounds like a broken record.

[Kunzite]

And on two forums (at least)

And wouldn't it be fun if Ricoh bought Olympus cameras and made it a brand? That would certainly add market share, plus . . . .

Instant Mirrorless.

Bad idea.

But perhaps they should buy the medical division, get back into endoscopes and throw Hoya out of the market. That would be fun*

* Not at the moment, with the "superbug" bacteria scandal.

And by the way - the thread's title is incorrect; it's not a nod, but a headbutt

[falconeye]

Samsung said they were working for about 3 years on the NX1.

When they eventually deliver K-FF, Pentax with pride will say they were working a whopping 15 years on it

[Bophoto]

The problem Richo had when they took over Pentax was that Hoya had doing the classical thing thing with a company = cutting down costs for more profit. But that they din´t do was to put in money for development of new stuff. So Pentax was actually shrinking at that time and we see it the product line the last 2, 3 years. Nonetheless (and lucky for us) Richo buy Pentax to built it up again and wanting to get profit and have the name Richo and Pentax seen on cameras in the streets. I have seen some statistic of camera sale here on Pentaxforums before, and the % numbers seams to be very strange and differs from different statistics.
What all? camera brands miss the last 10 years was to integrate a cellphone in their compact cameras. They could have made the compact camera market to increase. Instead they loose it.
Canon have ~50% of the DSLR market, and that is big and that´s good for them. but the quantity of camera products is going down a little from years to year. So that can Canon do? Try to get 70%? I don´t think so. They make money on 7D, a big Swedish site have the SEK prizes (no lens):
7D (5 years old) 14.990:-
7D II 16.490:-
And Pentax K3 7.490:-
It´s hard to compare them, but I think I can say that 7D II is best, then K3 and last 7D. But I don´t think that Canon can do that money again.
Then Richo have 5%, 7 or whatever. Richo have money and now the product line start growing. Richo can advertise more and have bigger showcase on Photokina and CP+. So I don´t see any reason that Pentax/Richo can´t bee the third biggest camera maker, with a ? for Samsung.

[Kunzite]

When they eventually deliver K-FF, Pentax with pride will say they were working a whopping 15 years on it

Pentax?
It will be Ricoh Imaging, previously known as Pentax Ricoh Imaging, which started on October 1st, 2011.

[ak_kiwi]

and Pentax really needs a sticker of approval from Dpreview?

Wow!

[hjoseph7]

You got to take into account that Ricoh is and was a manufacturer of cameras. They have been for the longest, but they have always been a small market share of the Total camera market. I'm guessing that the Pentax market share took a hit when they combined it with the market share from Ricoh. If Canon would have bought Pentax, then Pentax cameras would be included in Canon's overall market share, a whopping 50.7% of the overall camera market share.

---

Last edited by hjoseph7; 02-22-2015 at 01:46 PM.

[Uluru]

You got to take into account that Ricoh is and a manufacturer of cameras they have been for the longest but they have always been a small market share. I'm guessing that the Pentax market share took a hit when they combined it with the market share from Ricoh. If Canon would have bought Pentax, then Pentax cameras would be included in Canon's overall market share a whopping 50.7% of the overall camera market share.

Not quite. If Pentax was absorbed into Ricoh in a manner stated above, their combined market share would be bigger than Pentax' alone. However, decline was steeper than usual thanks primarily to Ricoh's takeover, and especially rebranding exercises that also have created lots of fear, uncertainty and doubt as to what will Ricoh really do with Pentax now when they started to change about everything about that brand — including the websites and colour of lens rings.

That was a very bad move for Ricoh, that triggered erosion and extra loss of the market. Their market contracted first psychologically, and many fled elsewhere, since Ricoh never wanted to say anything about future plans. Only results people could see, were extensive changes on the outside and little infusion of real dough. And changes o the outside were not for the better.

We have argued about it here a lot, and despite claims to the opposite, today we see that Ricoh did not do that right. They have lost extra 3/7 of the customers in the reduced market size. In reality, they have lost more than 50% of the previous market share — which is a total disaster if we go back and compare with Pentax from 2012. (If others have lost 20% in the man time, for example, Ricoh has lost extra ~30% on top of that 20%). All because of their obtuse corporate stubbornness that does not yield in profits, but permanently loses market trust. Market trust equals market share, because people support their trust with their money.

"Red rings?", they say now. "Why would someone want red rings? Look, they are green!".

How the mighty have fallen. Now they must climb uphill, and behave much humbler than before. To summarise:

Pentax users : Ricoh = 1 : 0
Market share : Ricoh = 0 : 1
Economy : Ricoh = 1 : 0
Marketing basics : Ricoh = 1 : 0

---------- Post added 02-23-2015 at 07:50 AM ----------

When they eventually deliver K-FF, Pentax with pride will say they were working a whopping 15 years on it

I thought Nikon had claimed the longest development time for a DSLR with their Df.

---------- Post added 02-23-2015 at 07:53 AM ----------

Stirred by the same people, over, and over, and over, and over, ................
Sounds like a broken record.

Not really.
The analysis, which new data allowed, told us through numerical facts why, all of a sudden, we have green rings backs. You may think it is unimportant, but that "little detail", among many others, tells a lot.

[Kunzite]

Aren't you overestimating the effects on the color of some ring, on some lenses - something most people would not even take notice of? You're talking as if a company could double their market share just by choosing the proper color for that ring.

[Uluru]

And on two forums (at least)

Well, if someone had enough time to read both sources, maybe would conclude why, for example, other manufacturers were ‘so stupid’ in allowing constant loses, and lack of profit?
Did it occur to a well-informed and careful observer that it was because of the loyalty to the customer base? Breach of that loyalty in the declining market would mean better business results, yes, but loss of customer’s trust and market share.
Now, why Ricoh took the path of profitability and not striving for shorter term loses in order to keep the customers? Ricoh was in far better position than ANY of other brands to invest more in imaging division and not suffer the consequences of a market loss. It’s a double take on loyalty and integrity issue, which I know, is hard to talk openly around here.
Better to close eyes, stick fingers in the ears and sing a pretty song.

[Kunzite]

Interesting. Why don't you open a blog about it? Ricohigh.blogspot.com is available

Short terms losses are a solution only if you can be certain of an extra future profit, to more than compensate for them. In a declining market, who can give those guarantees?
So Ricoh Imaging is striving for profit, while also developing for the future. Something you apparently don't believe to be possible. You want Ricoh to lose money, and us to believe that would be for the best. Sounds crazy, because it is.

[Rondec]

Well, if someone had enough time to read both sources, maybe would conclude why, for example, other manufacturers were ‘so stupid’ in allowing constant loses, and lack of profit?
Did it occur to a well-informed and careful observer that it was because of the loyalty to the customer base? Breach of that loyalty in the declining market would mean better business results, yes, but loss of customer’s trust and market share.
Now, why Ricoh took the path of profitability and not striving for shorter term loses in order to keep the customers? Ricoh was in far better position than ANY of other brands to invest more in imaging division and not suffer the consequences of a market loss. It’s a double take on loyalty and integrity issue, which I know, is hard to talk openly around here.
Better to close eyes, stick fingers in the ears and sing a pretty song.

There is no point at all for Ricoh to sell cameras for a loss just to build market share. All this does is build up a base of cheap users who won't buy anything but discounted gear and gripe if things are priced reasonably. At the same time, Ricoh does sell camera bodies for very reasonable prices. A Pentax K3 is selling for 800-ish, while a D7100 is selling for 1000 and a 7D MK II is selling for 1800 dollars. To me, these sorts of prices aren't going to lose Ricoh money, but they aren't severe discounts that will lead to the expectation of Ricoh selling cameras for a loss.

And I think your focusing on color of rings on lenses is just plain silly. It doesn't matter. The question is how good the lenses are and what is their build and price. Those will decide whether or not Pentax sells more limited lenses, not the color of the rings.

(this thread needs a photo, this one taken with crappy, poorly designed K-01)...

[Class A]

At the same time, Ricoh does sell camera bodies for very reasonable prices.

Agreed.

However, can the same be said about the lenses?

For anyone putting high emphasis on compactness and/or weather-sealing, Pentax lenses may be good offerings. For others, the optical performance often does not appear to justify the prices which themselves do not appear to reflect the advantage of not needing to build in optical stabilisation into the lens, nor the lack of sophisticated AF ring motors.

Typically, initial price reactions by Pentaxians are responded to with a statement that prices will come down over time, but

1. reviews judge the product based on the initial price tag. Respective categorisations do not change, even when the street price has become a pale shadow of the original price.
2. price reductions do not appear to be that common with lenses (as opposed to bodies). Anyone correct me, if I'm wrong.
3. I'd rather see Ricoh introducing products with a reasonable price straight away and then keep the price constant over the product's lifetime. This would help initial sales and also avoid perceived (and real) depreciation.

[reh321]

Agreed.

However, can the same be said about the lenses?

For anyone putting high emphasis on compactness and/or weather-sealing, Pentax lenses may be good offerings. For others, the optical performance often does not appear to justify the prices which themselves do not appear to reflect the advantage of not needing to build in optical stabilization into the lens, nor the lack of sophisticated AF ring motors.

Have you done an actual comparison to verify your hunch? For Canon and Nikon, many users get by with Tamron and/or Sigma lenses, because the OEM lenses are so incredibly expensive.

[stevebrot]

we must only pray Ricoh does not screw up this time like they did with K-01

Massaging history to make a point...oh, the shame...


Steve

(K-01 was not a Ricoh product)