[boriscleto]

Pentax is Doomed!!

Trademark infringement!

PentaxIsDooomed™

[Kunzite]

In any case, if anyone is really worried about Pentax's future, there is something useful and practical you can do about it - give them some business.

The typical reaction is to not give them any business (often buying some other brand), so one could hopefully say "see? I was right!".

By the way, didn't Ricoh said the complete opposite (to what is speculated by the tabloid i.e. killing Pentax) just a few months ago?
https://digicame-info.com/2022/07/post-1543.html

[biz-engineer]

The typical reaction is to not give them any business (often buying some other brand), so one could hopefully say "see? I was right!".

I don't know if you realize, but even a small brand like Pentax represents approximately 500 Million Euro of annual revenue, similar to Leica (Canon make 30 Billions $ revenue by selling ILC systems, it's huge, even in 2022). So even if 50 Pentaxians would make an superhuman effort to buy 20 000 Euro worth of Pentax gear (new) in less than a year, the total sale would represent 0.2% of Ricoh Imaging annual revenue, completely insignificant in the eyes of the CFO. That's why customers deciding to not buy won't have an impact on Ricoh's business decisions, and the only way for Ricoh to make money is to help themselves by making new products with features customers are willing to spend money for, and advertising. ROIC profile can be improved by either reducing company owned assets (closing/selling facilities, outsourcing), and/or increasing operational profits by designing and releasing new products.

[robgski]

Pentax is Doomed!!

I am surprised these words of wisdom were in the 7th post and not the 2nd. Nothing more need be said,

Is this the end of little Ricoh? Get out while you can!
I will gladly purchase anyone’s kit for a reasonable price so they can move on using a system with a future.

More snapping, less yapping.

[biz-engineer]

I will gladly purchase anyone’s kit for a reasonable price so they can move on using a system with a future.

When you sell or buy used Pentax equipment, you actually hurt the Pentax business twice. If I sell my Pentax gear (mint condition) and someone buys my gear, I hurt Pentax once because the person who'll buy my gear won't buy it new from Ricoh, and I hurt Pentax a second time because I'm exit the K mount and won't buy new K mount products from Ricoh Imaging. A large used market for a lens mount is good for customer but very bad for a camera business, that's why Canon, Nikon etc.. change lens mounts once every decade or so, to avoid the used market becoming the dominant market for their brand. Due to how old is the K mount, the total potential market for Pentax is millions of users, but the actual serviceable market counts in thousands, that's a big business challenge for Ricoh Imaging.

[robgski]

When you sell or buy used Pentax equipment, you actually hurt the Pentax business twice.

If Pentax is doomed, not even the purchase of new gear can save Pentax. As was written by the scribes of old, and affirmed on the Internet, so now the Pentaxpocalypse is dawning. Heed the warnings, let him who has eyes see the signs, let him who is in the filed not returrn to his lens collection at home but instead sell all he has and buy a mirrorless camera.

[Mistral75]

I don't know if you realize, but even a small brand like Pentax represents approximately 500 Million Euro of annual revenue, similar to Leica (...)

Er... no, they don't. Last figures available date back to FY2018. Ricoh Imaging, the whole Ricoh Imaging including Ricoh GR, Theta and WG in addition to the Pentax business, had an annual revenue of ¥18.3bn. That's around €130m.

[beholder3]

Ok, the source does not seem optimal

I do wonder if that thin article is pure clickbait, simply because the only argument in there is based on " will introduce an in-house company system in April 2021 and emphasize return on invested capital ( ROIC )"

And that clearly is not a translation error. That statement is simply very old news as it sounds it is from sometime in 2020.

Either the Japanese article is clickbait or has a pretty bad typo with regards to the year.

They could as well cite some Nikon numbers from a year ago when they were deep in the red.

Other than that: Any CEO from any company who does not regularly review his lines of business for ROI probably should be fired asap.

[UncleVanya]

A large used market for a lens mount is good for customer but very bad for a camera business, that's why Canon, Nikon etc.. change lens mounts once every decade or so, to avoid the used market becoming the dominant market for their brand.

Let’s not get the facts twisted. Nikon F mount was quite long lived, longer than k mount actually. The F mount was first introduced in 1959, and Z mount was not introduced until 2018. Just like the K mount (1975 to present), the F mount had evolutionary changes over time but kept reasonably compatible. The one major difference in their backwards support was dropping screwdrive from their entry models.

Canon too kept EF mount longer than a decade; introduced in 1987, the RF mount came on the scene in 2018. The FL (1964-1971) FD (1971-1987) mount and the R (1959-1964) mount were shorter lived, thought the FL lenses worked on FD mount cameras with limited functionality (stop down metering).

Pentaxes easy use of m42 lenses is nearly unique in that it gives easy access to lenses all the way back to 1949! True many mirrorless designs offer easy adaptation of the manual focus lenses of many brands, but only Pentax offers this level of continuous lineage of glass without ditching the ovf. However, let’s not cast Nikon and Canon in the role of swapping every decade…

[reh321]

When you sell or buy used Pentax equipment, you actually hurt the Pentax business twice. If I sell my Pentax gear (mint condition) and someone buys my gear, I hurt Pentax once because the person who'll buy my gear won't buy it new from Ricoh, and I hurt Pentax a second time because I'm exit the K mount and won't buy new K mount products from Ricoh Imaging. A large used market for a lens mount is good for customer but very bad for a camera business, that's why Canon, Nikon etc.. change lens mounts once every decade or so, to avoid the used market becoming the dominant market for their brand. Due to how old is the K mount, the total potential market for Pentax is millions of users, but the actual serviceable market counts in thousands, that's a big business challenge for Ricoh Imaging.

But Pentax does benefit from the existence of the “secondary” market itself; If a person wants some particular lens - and Pentax doesn’t happen to sell that lens right now - the person can often find one in that market. Pentax has shown its recognition of the value of that market in how its software works, for example in how the K-3iii handles old lenses.

[photoptimist]

Although I understand the impulse to switch from a potentially dying brand to a popular brand, that impulse may be wrong at a very deep level.

The desire to "invest" in a system that was going to be around for a long time made sense in the early days of digital cameras when the technology was making so many leaps and bounds. Next year's camera really was better so it made sense to pick a brand that was likely to make a new camera next year. However, the rate of change in performance has slowed in the last decade. The K-1 remains better than any of Canon's newest and most expensive cameras on IQ and the newer cameras that beat the K-1 do so by very modest margins. There's not much reason to incur the high cost of switching just to maybe get access to better future performance if it ever arrives.

It's also likely that none of today's systems are future-proof. The mirrorless systems of Sony, Fuji, Canon, and Nikon could easily die in the turbulence of the modern digital technology world and the world of corporate politics. Moreover, if some Chinese company decides to go after the standalone camera market, any of today's Japanese favorites could die. Or, any of these camera makers could decide they need to make a next-generation mirrorless system that has limited compatibility with current generation bodies and lenses. Simply put, the world is changing too much to think that cameras or lenses will ever be lifetime investments again.


Personally, I love the robustness, ergonomics, controls, and OVF of the Pentax system. For me, every single alternative on the market these days would be a giant step backward in usability. Thus I plan to hold on to my K-1 until it dies. If/when that happens, I will likely buy a used K-1 unless one of the camera makers can replicate enough of the wonderful qualities of Pentax. And when the second K-1 dies, I'll by a third used one, unless....etc. At some point I may be forced to switch but I'll have gotten at least another decade of use from the Pentax system and get to pick among the best of the best brands of 2032 rather than be forced to bet on one of the 2022 brands that I don't particularly like and may not be around in 2032, either.

[redbirdpete]

I'm a pensioner. I have a very excellent camera, and loads of backups, plus many film era cameras, most of them Pentaxes. If Pentax ceases to be, it will change nothing for me. They will still have been the best cameras and lenses I have ever used - forget reviews, I'm talking about the personal enjoyment from using such quality items.

We now live in a world of insane consumerism where the idea of a product being still suitable for purpose after 50 years (or even 10 years) is regarded as some sort of heresy. I do not subscribe to that argument, and furthermore it is such a hopelessly wasteful approach that it cannot be sustained. I will still use my SV, my MEF, my K200D - lovely colours from the CCD sensor - and whatever until they no longer function or - in the case of the first two - film is no longer available. Yes, my main camera is my K5 IIs, and my first backup a K7 - but I still value and enjoy the others. And I still (occasionally) use my KM and M42 lenses.

The way for Pentax to make money from their huge legacy market would be to offer professional servicing and repair of their products worldwide. But that wouldn't produce the same sort of quick profits made from flogging some newfangled gizmo every year as other companies do and which excites those who gamble on shares. It would be 'old-fashioned'. But it might produce the sort of steady annual dividends which should be the real reason for owning shares.

[texandrews]

The desire to "invest" in a system that was going to be around for a long time made sense in the early days of digital cameras when the technology was making so many leaps and bounds. Next year's camera really was better so it made sense to pick a brand that was likely to make a new camera next year. However, the rate of change in performance has slowed in the last decade.

In a major way with the best cameras! At least in terms of:

The K-1 remains better than any of Canon's newest and most expensive cameras on IQ and the newer cameras that beat the K-1 do so by very modest margins. There's not much reason to incur the high cost of switching just to maybe get access to better future performance if it ever arrives.

Yes, in terms of stills IQ. And I would say that we've definitely reached the point of stills IQ that the onus is almost entirely on the photographer now. The 645Z and K1mkII cameras---and now the new K3mkIII I suppose---all give brilliant stills IQ in a variety of conditions; and that's with a 2014 camera and a 2018 camera that only had modest improvements IQ wise from its 2016 predecessor. But other things have improved: video, notably; AF; general speed. For some users, especially events/action shooters, there have been significant gains.

[c.a.m]

I do wonder if that thin article is pure clickbait,

I think you are right.

IMO, the discussion should criticize the poor editorial content at Digital Camera World, rather than respond to the spectre of an unsubstantiated demise of Ricoh Imaging. I think that the subject article was intended to fill space at their website and to generate 'clicks'. It's an opinion piece, but not backed up with any evidence or any sense of analysis by the author.


- Craig

[bladerunner6]

Unfortunately people think they can say pretty much any random thought on the internet and then it becomes a fact.