[reh321]

Looking at the one photo, it seems as though the club house may be frequented to by ghosts. Pentax, where the invisible captures the visible.

I think Pentax has more value to Ricoh than it would to any other investor at this point. I suppose if they got to the end of the line, they could sell the name to some Chinese company who would then sell knock off MILCs under the same name, but it seems like Ricoh has some interest in the history and legacy of Pentax and the K mount that few others would have.

I’ve had several silly dreams lately.

In one of them, Ricoh sold the “Q” to Samsung, who then used the name to re-enter the MILC market, using their phone technology.

In another one, Ricoh used their own GR technology to make a K-02.
I could buy that, because it gets around my main issue with the GR - the lack of flexibility - but it would be larger of course.

But those are just that, ‘silly dreams’.

---

Last edited by reh321; 05-30-2022 at 06:21 AM.

[Rondec]

I’ve had several silly dreams lately.

In one of them, Ricoh sold the “Q” to Samsung, who then used the name to re-enter the MILC market, using their phone technology.

In another one, Ricoh used their own GR technology to make a K-02.
I could buy that, because it gets around my main issue with the GR - the lack of flexibility - but it would be larger of course.

But those are just that, ‘silly dreams’.

I guess to me I think that regardless of what we faithful on the Forums believe about the benefits of an OVF, Pentax is an anachronism right now. A company that buys them is buying a company that sells horse drawn carriages after Ford has come out with the Model T. So the only thing you are buying is the cache of the name, which is pretty much unknown, except in Japan. When people see me shooting a Pentax camera, they ask what the brand is, or say something like, "I didn't know they were still making cameras. I had one in my high school photography class."

I think the Q is a tough camera. The question really comes down to what it has over smart phone cameras, other than interchangeable lenses.

[reh321]

I guess to me I think that regardless of what we faithful on the Forums believe about the benefits of an OVF, Pentax is an anachronism right now. A company that buys them is buying a company that sells horse drawn carriages after Ford has come out with the Model T. So the only thing you are buying is the cache of the name, which is pretty much unknown, except in Japan. When people see me shooting a Pentax camera, they ask what the brand is, or say something like, "I didn't know they were still making cameras. I had one in my high school photography class."

I think the Q is a tough camera. The question really comes down to what it has over smart phone cameras, other than interchangeable lenses.

For me, interchangeable lenses are a big deal, as I learned twice.
Once when I moved from range-finder cameras to Pentax.
Again, when my first digital camera had ‘only’ a zoom lense..

[BigMackCam]

I think Pentax has more value to Ricoh than it would to any other investor at this point. I suppose if they got to the end of the line, they could sell the name to some Chinese company who would then sell knock off MILCs under the same name, but it seems like Ricoh has some interest in the history and legacy of Pentax and the K mount that few others would have.

I tend to agree, Vincent... I was just thinking out loud that having some brand separation potentially makes it easier to restructure - whatever form that might take - in future, should it become necessary, without impacting the Ricoh brand of cameras... at least in terms of customer perception, if not the technical and manufacturing challenges. Given what we've read and seen from Ricoh in recent months, I don't for one moment believe they've anything other than positive plans and intentions for the Pentax brand and line...

[JPT]

I'm not sure how this thread got mired in discussion of restructuring and divesting Pentax (again). It's part of a new strategy that they have already announced. Nothing is new in that regard.

The point is that since the Pentax Statement was publicized, Ricoh has sought to present Pentax more like an entity in its own right. I think this is because they realized the value of the brand, and they don't just want it to be a name they put on their cameras, like Panasonic putting "Lumix" on their cameras. It has more meaning. This new location is part of that strengthening of the brand.

I'm sure they also feel GR is a strong brand too, but they are going to promote it differently. In fact they have been doing quite a lot of GR events as well recently, and they have a store and websites for that too.

[BigMackCam]

I'm not sure how this thread got mired in discussion of restructuring and divesting Pentax (again). It's part of a new strategy that they have already announced. Nothing is new in that regard.

The point is that since the Pentax Statement was publicized, Ricoh has sought to present Pentax more like an entity in its own right. I think this is because they realized the value of the brand, and they don't just want it to be a name they put on their cameras, like Panasonic putting "Lumix" on their cameras. It has more meaning. This new location is part of that strengthening of the brand.

I'm sure they also feel GR is a strong brand too, but they are going to promote it differently. In fact they have been doing quite a lot of GR events as well recently, and they have a store and websites for that too.

It's my fault, I'm afraid. I was interested by your comment that the Pentax Club Lounge won't feature any Ricoh equipment, and I posted my thoughts out loud instead of keeping them to myself

I see this Pentax-dedicated venue development as nothing but good, positive news... My apologies for unintentionally derailing the thread. I'll step out of the discussion...

[traderdrew]

However, when I tried to show them my Pentax, I was surprised by their response. One Nikon fan, after I praised his D850, I showed him "my modest Pentax K1" and he immediately replied "that's complete s**t, you should throw this away and get yourself a real camera, a Nikon". Another colleague from work, he showed me his newly acquired 5DIV, I said "Wow, you have here a great camera", then I wanted to show him my Pentax DA limited (how small these lenses are) he replied "no, thank you, I have no interest in such lenses". Only once I discussed with a Canon employee (marketing/sales) at a wildlife photography meeting and he said "yes, Pentax makes good cameras", I was surprised, then we discussed about AF settings, and he explained to me how AF tracking works and how to set my Pentax (based on what he knew from Canon).

lol...These people are like fans of sports teams. It's the same mentality. I've encountered and heard about the occasional arrogant Nikon fan. Most people in the field aren't true photographers. I don't consider myself a true photographer. Most of my little debates have been with Canon fans. I think of them as pic snappers. They typically brag about great Canon is at high ISOs and that it has no noise. That doesn't get anywhere with me. I always counter that argument. I tell them, "I can shoot in high iso but it's like "Why?" Do I need a faster shutter speed? Do I need to stop my lens down? Unless I'm doing night photography.... I might tell them, yeah you have no really visible noise but when you stop cropping and then post processing, you start running into problems with bird photography.

Edit: Then I might actually see their works online and I'm thinking "Wait a minute, I thought he said no noise." lol

[OoKU]

After President Noboru Akahane came back last year, PENTAX and GR established their own business divisions respectively, at least in terms of sales and publicity.

[MarkJerling]

I guess to me I think that regardless of what we faithful on the Forums believe about the benefits of an OVF, Pentax is an anachronism right now. A company that buys them is buying a company that sells horse drawn carriages after Ford has come out with the Model T. So the only thing you are buying is the cache of the name, which is pretty much unknown, except in Japan. When people see me shooting a Pentax camera, they ask what the brand is, or say something like, "I didn't know they were still making cameras. I had one in my high school photography class."

I think the Q is a tough camera. The question really comes down to what it has over smart phone cameras, other than interchangeable lenses.

I view it slightly differently.

A company that buys them is buying a company that sells horse drawn carriages after Ford has come out with the Model T.

I'd plagiarize that sentence of yours and change it to:

A company that buys them is buying a company that sells LPs after Phillips and Sony has come out with the CD.

As time has shown, CDs are dead, records are making a comeback and streaming is all the rage. Maybe, when looking at photography, "streaming" is mobile phone cameras which are everywhere and used by almost everyone. I predict that it's entirely possible that mirrorless may be CDs and that the SLR format may remain, when much else is gone.

Pipe dream? Perhaps! But I'd like to think it's possible.

[ZombieArmy]

A company that buys them is buying a company that sells horse drawn carriages after Ford has come out with the Model T.

I think we're overselling the benefits of an EVF a little bit here.

[Rondec]

Look. I’m an OVF fan. I have a lot of Pentax gear including both DFA* primes. I just don’t think Ricoh wants to sell or that there’d be a big market if they did.

[biz-engineer]

I just don’t think Ricoh wants to sell or that there’d be a big market if they did.

Selling means someone is willing to invest, and who is willing to invest in an overall declining market with not hope of growth even in a distance future? Reading the last press releases, I refined my understand of what Ricoh are trying to do with the camera business. I believe Pentax and GR aren't going anywhere, but that Ricoh are down-sizing their production operations, moving their sales operations to online only sales, and making their supply chain lean: online sales (minimize inventory of finished goods), manufacture on demand triggered by online orders backlog, minimize inventory of parts, work in progress and assembled products. Technology is like perishable goods, it is said computer depreciate 25% a year, cameras aren't very different, their value drops quickly when unsold, and that's why every tech company aims at zero inventory. Having thousands of Pentax K1 or Pentax K3 III in warehouses all over the world is very costly, and if unsold have to be written off, that's a financial loss. Nikon now make cameras on demand (order to delivery lead time is 9 months for a Z9 ?). After delivering Pentax K3 III to customers days after they order, Ricoh see how Nikon are doing it, I bet Ricoh figured they should do the same. The Pentax club house , like other show rooms , is just a part of the execution of the overall plan to go lean. And in the future, what might change for Pentaxians is that they may have to wait one or two months to get their new Pentax camera after their order it online. Well, that's my understanding reading between the lines.

[Pål Jensen]

I guess to me I think that regardless of what we faithful on the Forums believe about the benefits of an OVF, Pentax is an anachronism right now. A company that buys them is buying a company that sells horse drawn carriages after Ford has come out with the Model T. .

It is the other way around. Mirrorless cameras have been around since the 1800's....

[Digitalis]

It is the other way around. Mirrorless cameras have been around since the 1800's....

....And cameras like them are still being made with their essential characteristics pretty much unadulterated centuries later.

[house]

The strict GR/Pentax split into different venues is interesting. Obviously they have different brand values but as a Pentax and GR user I feel they have a lot of similarities (beyond shared tech) but perhaps they largely don't have the same users.

Two venues could just be the result of different users and the advantages of being able to curate exhibitions and events without the other brand 'interfering' with visuals, design cues or people. Perhaps they are aiming for a lot of activity so that scheduling both brands wouldn't work.