Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-09-2014, 06:04 AM   #46
Loyal Site Supporter
GlassJunkie's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: St Petersburg
Photos: Albums
Posts: 379
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
.
Good post.



This is what I've been pointing out for a while - that risk aversion, not necessarily careful, airtight analysis, as some suppose - is what's holding them back from introducing FF. An institutional inertia, as I've phrased it.

What's more I think it's fair to criticize this - to not simply accept it as an un-changeable Japanese cultural artifact. We've seen risk taken on from Fuji, Panasonic, Samsung, even Sony. We've seen Pentax move successfully into the MFD market where the margins are great enough to keep a very low-volume operation in the black (we assume,) but there has been no decision to bolster their main product line - K-mount - in a way that could help sustain it in the face of the MILC disruption, which will not be kind to K-mount. The EVF situation is only a temporary detent to that - it's coming strong.

If I'm wrong about the institutional inertia, then there's only one other viable explanation in my view - they are treading water with K-mount with the full intention of dumping it in order to move forward with a more MILC-friendly mount. In that scenario K-mount will possibly be 'supported' with an AF-capable adapter... but no further development will happen there. This is one way to go, and they may be moving toward that break.

I'd actually feel better about that if it didn't appear that they were allowing it to happen by default - by dithering until external market forces and competitors made the decision an easy one, an only one. I've been in a few companies where that was the trunk of the decision tree (dithering, waiting until there's only one path forward and $ returns have shrunk to 'survive', because no one executive wants to be on the hook for a risk-holding choice) and I feel like I see signs of that here, bubbling below the surface. I've felt that way for a while, but feel the need to acknowledge the two ownership changes in the last six years as contributors to this dithering... but that excuse only travels so far.

Pentax should commit fully and strongly to their path forward. If that path is centered on K-mount, it needs to include an FF product, or they will be squeezed from below by MILC and fixed-large-bridge and from above by FF (MILC and DSLR) until they disappear into the ether, surviving in name only like a Kodak or Vivitar.

.
Interesting viewpoints... I believe your "institutional inertia" point is well made.... After working over their for a couple of years, I believe that "II" (to shorten it) is far worse/better than the States. Whatever the rationale (lack of growth/ innovation or predictable dividends), it makes the RedRocks in Nevada look like they are in motion. "Stuck in the mud" doesn't even come close..... The Japanese manage (not a knock, I use this approach everyday) by "Removing Excuses". If you are risk averse, you stagnate. Heck, they have been in secular stagnation and contraction since the late'80s or early 90s (depending on where you want to put the inflection point).

I just saw another post come in about Samsung. Back to Japan..... The Japanese that worked for me (40) and peers (4) all said that the educational system there was built for "refinement and automation"... Hence the Walkman (a refinement of cassette recorders). The Japanese told me that Sony's strength was miniature radios and cassettes, and that when CDs were introduced by Philips, SONY was doomed for 20 years.... About right. They also used to Joke about software development, saying "all of the good software came from the States because Americans could think out of the box". They also warned that the Korean school system was reinvented with American influence from the 50s to present due to the Armed forces presence, and that Koreans were far more innovative and wrote better software. Based on that comment (dated about 1990) and watching LG and Samsung out innovate SONY in many segments, I think they nailed the analysis. Sad news is "II" at a national level is still entrenched...

The "MILC friendly mount", is merely IMHO, a mount that allows for a shorter image registration distance requiring a new lens design... If we accept that a mirror box thickness could help in the process and innovate around it (possibly to include adapters that can work with longer registration k mounts) an adapter set like the GXR on something like an A7, or a reworked K-01 (and I mean really reworked to FF and losing the Fischer Price knobs) would be rather interesting... A hell of a lot cheaper on Glass R&D, (putting most of the R&D in the lens adaptation to maximize the legacy glass).

I think you are right about "II", only it's more entrenched than we imagine. I believe your "treading water" comment is mostly right, but they are already on a path to utilize K-mount for MILC in FF (K-01 was the lab rat, under resolved and no EVF or OVF kit).... K-Mount isn't going to be obsoleted. they know they can Keep the K-mounters happy with the right "adapters" or MILC design.... I don't think they are "flopping around on the dock going nowhere" (they love that expression. I think they are sitting on the riverbank watching.... They always used to tell me (on competitiors), "If you sit on the riverbank long enough, you will see the bodies of your enemies go by"... They meant it....I believe that they just aren't ready yet... EVF/OVF and camera/adapter design is where they are working, other than lenses to strengthen existing platforms...IMHO

09-09-2014, 06:07 AM   #47
Loyal Site Supporter
dadipentak's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Baltimore, Maryland
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,404
QuoteOriginally posted by GlassJunkie Quote
Light box/thickness of the camera aside.... Would we rather have a Pentax FF MILC at 36MP+ or a DSLR? I'd go with the MILC since it can not be as "crippled" with some of the older lenses that a DSLR might, and put in an element or 2 (adapter or in camera) that operated like that little 1.7x AFTC they built with SMCP-F lenses to put some AF at hand for the "A"s. Or leave it MF.

Take A7-A7r head on.....
I think that's right. In the long run, the mirror is...pardon the expression...doomed.
09-09-2014, 06:17 AM   #48
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 5,794
QuoteOriginally posted by dadipentak Quote
I think that's right. In the long run, the mirror is...pardon the expression...doomed.
Sadly I agree. Eventually the resolution, refresh rate, color, & DR of the EVF will exceed what the human eye can perceive. Once that happens there will be no need for an OVF. I still don't like EVFs, but they are the future and if you are going to invest in glass, invest for the future. I'm glad to see Pentax working on the 645z, but I can't help but feel that mirrorless will take over MF. The MF world is accustom to slow AF and slow frame rates. The greatest advantage of mirrorless (size) benefits the huge 645 system more than the K-mount. You could build a MF mirrorless body the size of the K-3.
09-09-2014, 06:45 AM   #49
Loyal Site Supporter
GlassJunkie's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: St Petersburg
Photos: Albums
Posts: 379
Remember the "Spruce Goose?

QuoteOriginally posted by Winder Quote
Sadly I agree. Eventually the resolution, refresh rate, color, & DR of the EVF will exceed what the human eye can perceive. Once that happens there will be no need for an OVF. I still don't like EVFs, but they are the future and if you are going to invest in glass, invest for the future. I'm glad to see Pentax working on the 645z, but I can't help but feel that mirrorless will take over MF. The MF world is accustom to slow AF and slow frame rates. The greatest advantage of mirrorless (size) benefits the huge 645 system more than the K-mount. You could build a MF mirrorless body the size of the K-3.
The Pentax K-01 was their first ILC. they got some things right... Used K-Mount (hence the lovely thickness ). Made by Pentax. (OK learning while doing)... Ergonomically designed (albeit for pre-schoolers).

Next one:

FF 36MP or more, EVF of VERY high res, Used K mount and has an on-board or adapter AF capability. Marc Newson does the packaging and leaves the camera design to the Pentax designers. Rugged, WR. No AA filter. WiFi without adapter (hell there is enough room when you leave in the light box for K-Mount).... Makes Coffee when wired to a French Press... (ok that was a stretch)...

09-09-2014, 07:05 AM - 1 Like   #50
Site Supporter
cyberjunkie's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Bologna, Amsterdam, Chiang Mai
Posts: 381
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
The most important thing to say to People waiting for a Pentax FF.
Get on with your life.
From the tone of your answer i get that you are far more concerned than i am.
Pentax FF is not a big concern, trust me. Probably there are a thousand other things that concern me the more...
As you answered to MY post, and not somebody's else, i invite you to read it with more attention.
I am not whining about anything, just stating a few simple facts.
Egoistically, i would like to see Pentax survive, and hopefully improve on the current (rather lamentable) situation.
I would like to use my many expensive, very good lenses, on the format they were made for. I love super wides, now they are sitting in a drawer, unused (since last time i shot film).
When i sold my Nikon to buy a Pentax MX, more than 35 years ago, i made a choice, based on rational facts.
I've used my film bodies with satisfaction, and used my 6x7 professionally (along two Linhofs). I don't complain about Pentax lenses either, very very few were duds, some were the absolute best the market could offer. Some were so good that they still share a place at the very top.
Some of the reason i had to switch to Pentax still hold true, many others not. It is a fact.
I love lenses. I happen to collect them, and i have used many of them on film. The vast majority are large format, mostly for the biggest formats (8x10" or more). I've tried to use all the most interesting lenses, even with x-ray films, to save money (8x10" are expensive!). Some lenses i own are still very usable, even a late 1850 Voigtlander petzval!
Let's say that i love lenses much more than i love cameras
For that reason i'd be happy to see a full frame Pentax. To use some of the lenses i love, those that make no sense on APS-C!
Are you happy to have a camera for which there is no serious support from third party lens makers (and i'm not talking 28-200 abominations)? If you are, that's fine. I am not.
Are you happy to buy a Sony camera to use your wides and super-fast primes in manual (or with inferior ergonomics)? Fine. I am not, i use the digital for travel photography, i like to use the two camera wheels and shoot fast.
Are you happy to spend plenty of money for a digital medium format very few professional are buying? Fine. I don't have enough money, and if i had, i wouldn't anyway. In fact, i'd buy a FF in due time, probably second-hand... so i'm NOT drooling for it, just elaborating on what could keep Pentax alive, because that is the only thing i want.
Sorry if the fanboys don't realize it, take out your rose glasses: Pentax has lost most of its market share, the lens/accessories line has shrunk in a dramatic way (in the last 30 years), third party lens makers don't care a damn about Pentax, and many people who want to upgrade from their phone/compact don't even know about its existence (no surprise, no Pentax cameras sold in big consumer electronics shops).
As i like in-body SR and weather resistant cameras and lenses, and love Pentax cameras ergonomics (but the K-01, which has a few other strong points), i'd like to see Pentax survive, and hopefully improve on the current situation. I care very little about the bigger sensor and the higher resolution, i just want a camera which makes full use of my lenses, be them Pentax or third party ones in P/K mount.
If i have not been clear enough, i repeat it:
the large number of very good K mount lenses is the only determinant asset, the only base on which Pentax can build its future.

I've read other answers to my post, i must confess that i found some of them astonishing.

FF is irrelevant! It is a small niche! It will disappear soon! Then why on earth the big player are issuing more FF models, and why the diffusion of FF bodies is on the rise? I don't think the big players do it for fun!

FF cameras make for a small percentage of the total photographic market, so you can do without it! WRONG. Brand positioning is all that counts, you learn it at the first lesson of marketing. People will buy shitty plastic photographic toys, but it must be from a "pro" brand!

I wrote that an FF camera can even be sold at a loss, the answer is "so you think it would not create profits!" Wrong again. It COULD be sold at a loss, IF that is the only way to push the product, cause it would help to sell the whole line. A kind of bold move like that would place Pentax under the limelight, grabbing the attention of photo magazines and (more important!) of the huge Internet galaxy revolving around photography. Nowadays even the old farts browse Internet for advice... but they don't post. I don't have actual figures to support what i say, but i do know a lot of people, either advanced amateurs or earning a living with photography. I know what they think and i see what they do.
Whatever... my point is proven by the recent history of big companies, which went downhill, or bankrupt, cause they choose to sell a lot at small margins. They never sold enough to make a profit, cause there is always a chinese company doing it better, and cheaper! Many german companies are thriving because they choose to do exactly the opposite. Then, the reason to buy an Audi instead of a Subaru is a mystery... i guess most people think that what's german must be inherently better. See how good the germans are when it comes to brand positioning


After reading the various answers, and re-reading my original post (trying to challenge my take on the matter), i have two things to say:
1) sorry for poking my finger straight into the wound It looks like any active poster has to do it at least once. I did it, and i won't do it again!
2) i still have the same opinion: a decent full frame built upon the very good foundations of the K-3 would sell by itself. BUT it must be priced to sell, and must follow the Pentax concept of backward compatibility to its full realization. UNCRIPPLED mount. If mechanically possible, i'd also add auto diaphragm for M42 lenses. The use of the adapter does not prevent it, IMHO it should be possible to implement it without any major difficulty.


cheers

P

Last edited by cyberjunkie; 09-10-2014 at 06:25 AM.
09-09-2014, 07:23 AM   #51
Loyal Site Supporter
GlassJunkie's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: St Petersburg
Photos: Albums
Posts: 379
From one Junkie to another..

QuoteOriginally posted by cyberjunkie Quote
From the tone of your answer i get that you are far more concerned than i am.
Pentax FF is not a big concern, trust me. Probably there are a thousand other things that concern me the more...
As you answered to MY post, and not somebody's else, i invite you to read it with more attention.
I am not whining about anything, just stating a few simple facts.
Egoistically, i would like to see Pentax survive, and hopefully improve on the current (rather lamentable) situation.
I would like to use my many expensive, very good lenses, on the format they were made for. I love super wides, now they are sitting in a drawer, unused (since last time i shot film).
When i sold my Nikon to buy a Pentax MX, more than 35 years ago, i made a choice, based on rational facts.
I've used my film bodies with satisfaction, and used my 6x7 professionally (along two Linhofs). I don't complain about Pentax lenses either, very very few were duds, some were the absolute best the market could offer. Some were so good that they still share a place at the very top.
Some of the reason i had to switch to Pentax still hold true, many others not. It is a fact.
I love lenses. I happen to collect them, and i have used many of them on film. The vast majority are large format, mostly for the biggest formats (8x10" or more). I've tried to use all the most interesting lenses, even with x-ray films, to save money (8x10" are expensive!). Some lenses i own are still very usable, even a late 1850 Voigtlander petzval!
Let's say that i love lenses much more than i love cameras
For that reason i'd be happy to see a full frame Pentax. To use some of the lenses i love, those that make no sense on APS-C!
Are you have to have a camera for which there is no serious support from third party lens makers (and i'm not talking 28-200 abominations)? If you are, that's fine. I am not.
Are you happy to buy a Sony camera to use your wides and super-fast primes in manual (or with inferior ergonomics)? Fine. I am not, i use the digital for travel photography, i like to use the two camera wheels and shoot fast.
Are you happy to spend plenty of money for a digital medium format very few professional are buying? Fine. I don't have enough money, and if i had, i wouldn't anyway. In fact, i'd buy a FF in due time, probably second-hand... so i'm NOT drooling for it, just elaborating on what could keep Pentax alive, because that is the only thing i want.
Sorry if the fanboys don't realize it, take out your rose glasses: Pentax has lost most of its market share, the lens/accessories line has shrunk in a dramatic way (in the last 30 years), third party lens makers don't care a damn about Pentax, and many people who want to upgrade from their phone/compact don't even know about its existence (no surprise, no Pentax cameras sold in big consumer electronics shops).
As i like in-body SR and weather resistant cameras and lenses, and love Pentax cameras ergonomics (but the K-01, which has a few other strong points), i'd like to see Pentax survive, and hopefully improve on the current situation. I care very little about the bigger sensor and the higher resolution, i just want a camera which makes full use of my lenses, be them Pentax or third party ones in P/K mount.
If i have not been clear enough, i repeat it:
the large number of very good K mount lenses is the only determinant asset, the only base on which Pentax can build its future.

I've read other answers to my post, i must confess that i found some of them astonishing.

FF is irrelevant! It is a small niche! It will disappear soon! Then why on earth the big player are issuing more FF models, and why the diffusion of FF bodies is on the rise? I don't think the big players do it for fun!

FF cameras make for a small percentage of the total photographic market, so you can do without it! WRONG. Brand positioning is all that counts, you learn it at the first lesson of marketing. People will buy shitty plastic photographic toys, but it must be from a "pro" brand!

I wrote that an FF camera can even be sold at a loss, the answer is "so you think it would not create profits!" Wrong again. It COULD be sold at a loss, IF that is the only way to push the product, cause it would help to sell the whole line. A kind of bold move like that would place Pentax under the limelight, grabbing the attention of photo magazines and (more important!) of the huge Internet galaxy revolving around photography. Nowadays even the old farts browse Internet for advice... but they don't post. I don't have actual figures to support what i say, but i do know a lot of people, either advanced amateurs or earning a living with photography. I know what they think and i see what they do.
Whatever... my point is proven by the recent history of big companies, which went downhill, or bankrupt, cause they choose to sell a lot at small margins. They never sold enough to make a profit, cause there is always a chinese company doing it better, and cheaper! Many german companies are thriving because they choose to do exactly the opposite. Then, the reason to buy an Audi instead of a Subaru is a mystery... i guess most people think that what's german must be inherently better. See how good the germans are when it comes to brand positioning


After reading the various answers, and re-reading my original post (trying to challenge my take on the matter), i have two things to say:
1) sorry for poking my finger straight into the wound It looks like any active poster has to do it at least once. I did it, and i won't do it again!
2) i still have the same opinion: a decent full frame built upon the very good foundations of the K-3 would sell by itself. BUT it must be priced to sell, and must follow the Pentax concept of backward compatibility to its full realization. UNCRIPPLED mount. If mechanically possible, i'd also add auto diaphragm for M42 lenses. The use of the adapter does not prevent it, IMHO it should be possible to implement it without any major difficulty.


cheers

P
Loved your post. Agree with 95% of it....

On your last paragraph, #2.... ABSOLUTELY... and if they make MILC based on a REALLY refined blend of K-3 and K-01, it could be Big Medicine for anemia!
09-09-2014, 07:23 AM   #52
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by GlassJunkie Quote
Light box/thickness of the camera aside.... Would we rather have a Pentax FF MILC at 36MP+ or a DSLR? I'd go with the MILC since it can not be as "crippled" with some of the older lenses that a DSLR might, and put in an element or 2 (adapter or in camera) that operated like that little 1.7x AFTC they built with SMCP-F lenses to put some AF at hand for the "A"s. Or leave it MF.

Take A7-A7r head on.....
As I described here:

"...If I'm wrong about the institutional inertia, then there's only one other viable explanation in my view - they are treading water with K-mount with the full intention of dumping it in order to move forward with a more MILC-friendly mount. In that scenario K-mount will possibly be 'supported' with an AF-capable adapter... but no further development will happen there. This is one way to go, and they may be moving toward that break. "

And that may be where they're headed.

Personally I find MILC EVF not too bad right now, what falls down is CDAF lock speed in low light, and on-sensor PDAF doesn't seem to be fully ready yet. All my Nikon and Pentax DSLRs smoke every MILC I've tried in low-light AF acquisition. I feel that needs to improve more than anything... and then a 36MP+ FF MILC from Pentax with an AF-capable K adapter to help with those legacy moments (whipping out the FA 77 for some sublime greatness, for old-times sake) might be quite sweet.

.
09-09-2014, 07:37 AM - 1 Like   #53
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,817
Hey hey, when you can't argue with the logic, attack the person is that how it works? Excuse me for not drinking the Pentax FF cool aid, offensive as that might be. OK, dudes. i'm quite happy to leave you alone in dreamland... enjoy your day.

09-09-2014, 07:46 AM   #54
Loyal Site Supporter
GlassJunkie's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: St Petersburg
Photos: Albums
Posts: 379
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
As I described here:

"...If I'm wrong about the institutional inertia, then there's only one other viable explanation in my view - they are treading water with K-mount with the full intention of dumping it in order to move forward with a more MILC-friendly mount. In that scenario K-mount will possibly be 'supported' with an AF-capable adapter... but no further development will happen there. This is one way to go, and they may be moving toward that break. "

And that may be where they're headed.

Personally I find MILC EVF not too bad right now, what falls down is CDAF lock speed in low light, and on-sensor PDAF doesn't seem to be fully ready yet. All my Nikon and Pentax DSLRs smoke every MILC I've tried in low-light AF acquisition. I feel that needs to improve more than anything... and then a 36MP+ FF MILC from Pentax with an AF-capable K adapter to help with those legacy moments (whipping out the FA 77 for some sublime greatness, for old-times sake) might be quite sweet.

.
I don't have the resources (Nikon DSLR inventory), but I have had discussions with some that own both.... They say that on the APSc Nikons that are equivalent to K-3, that the Nikon AF is faster, but they also say the results are less consistent. One said that the K-3 "hunted more but seemed more precise". As a birder and macro shooter that is stupid enough to try it shoot macro in a breeze, I'd love to know what you might see. Reason? There could be SW/FW mods to allow more user control over AF parameters or "Priorities" for lack of a better word.

I have had several techy chats with Pentax over SDM solutions (I have a 16-50 that needed a motor) and a very detailed chat over mirror flop and possible causes (some are user error, I've seen it). Pentax wanted all the details, and within several months rolled out code 3 times. I am not sure I had any influence, but they were good exchanges. They were also great at expediting parts to CRIS to save me from a challenging project, needing my 16-50 DA*.

Last edited by GlassJunkie; 09-09-2014 at 09:28 AM.
09-09-2014, 08:00 AM   #55
Site Supporter
cyberjunkie's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Bologna, Amsterdam, Chiang Mai
Posts: 381
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by jatrax Quote
So your whole argument for adding a FF camera to the line is that some enthusiasts with 20 year old glass might buy it so they can use their old glass? If I'm sitting on the Ricoh product development committee that argument is not going to make me jump up and cheer for adding yet another format to the line.

There are I think valid reasons to add a FF camera, but 'so we can use our old glass the way it was intended' is not one of them.

Do you know that for every "new" Pentax glass there are at least 100 vintage PK optics which, IMHO, perform much better, and give more satisfaction, than most auto-everything plasticky zooms sold today?
Do you really still think that Pentax is a company making and selling lenses, and incidentally, just because they have to, they're also selling camera bodies?
Many of the current lenses are rebranded Tokinas, identical to those available in other mounts... just more expensive (and not by a small margin!). Now Tokina is a competitor. Despite that, i doubt we will get them in Pentax mount (except maybe a 18-200mm, or that kind of stuff).
I wouldn't be surprised to know that there are other lenses which are not made in-house. Cosina has shown its potential, they can make everything, from very cheap to very expensive, and do it very well.
Let's face it, if there is something special special about Pentax, it's not their lenses. not anymore.
It makes sense and i've nothing against it. The core of the intellectual property of Pentax is about camera technologies, in-camera SR, high-ISO performance, that stuff....
To survive Pentax needs to make bold moves and think a bit out of the box. In my opinion, that translates into stopping being concerned about cannibalizing your lens sales, and concentrate on cameras.
It is already like that, the Pentax lenses which are selling well are mainly a few basic zooms, cause they go with the cameras, and cause they are good: WR, decent build, decent optic, not expensive.
How many expensive lenses do you think they sell? Not so many, trust me, not so many. Most expensive lenses are not purchased on a whim. People get informations, ask, browse Internet. Why should i buy an expensive Pentax f/2.8 zoom, when a Tamron is optically better and costs one third? Cause it's mechanically better? If i really want a mechanical marvel i'd buy a Pentax-A zoom, like a f/3.5 constant aperture, which costs peanuts and still has an edge over kit zooms of today.

cheers

P
09-09-2014, 09:09 AM   #56
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,323
QuoteOriginally posted by Winder Quote
Sadly I agree. Eventually the resolution, refresh rate, color, & DR of the EVF will exceed what the human eye can perceive. Once that happens there will be no need for an OVF. I still don't like EVFs, but they are the future and if you are going to invest in glass, invest for the future.
And that's how working technologies are replaced with things which aren't there yet.
I would not assume that EVFs will reach the stated level anytime soon; there are too many interdependent factors which needs to be improved. I would not buy something I don't like based on said assumption. YMMV.
09-09-2014, 09:42 AM   #57
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,423
QuoteOriginally posted by mecrox Quote
If Pentax are not evolving then the only reason - apart from a group-think so strong no one can break it - is that Ricoh are refusing to invest. If Ricoh are refusing to invest, then the best thing would be for them to call it a day now, for otherwise in the months or years ahead they would be investing in what they didn't care for and would be glad to be rid of, and the inevitable result would be tears before bedtime. Yes, strange indeed.
What we know is Ricoh did not invest much after the initial purchase. Over the last three Fiscal Years (ended March) Ricoh constructed and brought on line a massive manufacturing facility in China; has aggressively entered the Production Printer market, restructured its entire company and downsized its workforce by 10,000 globally (15% +/-) and rationalized its US document management company IKON Office Systems (also purchased in 2008).

All of the above tells us they probably didn't invest much in Ricoh Imaging but it doesn't tell us they won't invest much in Ricoh Imaging in the future.
09-09-2014, 10:07 AM   #58
Loyal Site Supporter
GlassJunkie's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: St Petersburg
Photos: Albums
Posts: 379
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
What we know is Ricoh did not invest much after the initial purchase. Over the last three Fiscal Years (ended March) Ricoh constructed and brought on line a massive manufacturing facility in China; has aggressively entered the Production Printer market, restructured its entire company and downsized its workforce by 10,000 globally (15% +/-) and rationalized its US document management company IKON Office Systems (also purchased in 2008).

All of the above tells us they probably didn't invest much in Ricoh Imaging but it doesn't tell us they won't invest much in Ricoh Imaging in the future.
I would submit they will invest (they look like Canon, with some higher end printing/graphics machines and a smaller Photo presence)... I believe they will invest in Pentax, but prudently and strategically. They will launch new products, but well thought out. Ricoh has a belly for risk (compared to some Japanese competitors), but they will be very smart about how they play.... They look like a smaller more agile Canon, better balanced than KonicaMinolta, and believe it or not... Folks at Nikon aren't worried yet, but they are already thinking about 5 years out and facing Broad Lines from Canon and RP. Amusing would be a Tie-up with K/M and Nikon (since KM dumped a bleeding Minolta to SONY).... The kiretsu' are already playing the war games...
09-09-2014, 10:16 AM   #59
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,216
QuoteOriginally posted by cyberjunkie Quote
Do you know that for every "new" Pentax glass there are at least 100 vintage PK optics which, IMHO, perform much better, and give more satisfaction, than most auto-everything plasticky zooms sold today?
Do you really still think that Pentax is a company making and selling lenses, and incidentally, just because they have to, they're also selling camera bodies?
Many of the current lenses are rebranded Tokinas, identical to those available in other mounts... just more expensive (and not by a small margin!). Now Tokina is a competitor. Despite that, i doubt we will get them in Pentax mount (except maybe a 18-200mm, or that kind of stuff).
I wouldn't be surprised to know that there are other lenses which are not made in-house. Cosina has shown its potential, they can make everything, from very cheap to very expensive, and do it very well.
Let's face it, if there is something special special about Pentax, it's not their lenses. not anymore.
It makes sense and i've nothing against it. The core of the intellectual property of Pentax is about camera technologies, in-camera SR, high-ISO performance, that stuff....
To survive Pentax needs to make bold moves and think a bit out of the box. In my opinion, that translates into stopping being concerned about cannibalizing your lens sales, and concentrate on cameras.
It is already like that, the Pentax lenses which are selling well are mainly a few basic zooms, cause they go with the cameras, and cause they are good: WR, decent build, decent optic, not expensive.
How many expensive lenses do you think they sell? Not so many, trust me, not so many. Most expensive lenses are not purchased on a whim. People get informations, ask, browse Internet. Why should i buy an expensive Pentax f/2.8 zoom, when a Tamron is optically better and costs one third? Cause it's mechanically better? If i really want a mechanical marvel i'd buy a Pentax-A zoom, like a f/3.5 constant aperture, which costs peanuts and still has an edge over kit zooms of today.

cheers

P
From Pentax's stand point, there is absolutely no reason to make a full frame camera if no one buys new lenses (from Pentax). The idea that Pentax would make a camera purely so that folks could mount legacy glass on it is absurd. Camera companies make more money on glass than on the camera bodies.

As to the older lenses being optically better, it depends on the lens. Coatings have improved over time, obviously auto focus was not present on the older lenses you mention, and with computers, there have been improvements in zoom design.

Just to set the record straight, Pentax has licensed the lens designs for many of the DA lenses to Tokina, not the reverse. The only DA lens that Tokina owns the patent on the lens design is the DA 12-24.
09-09-2014, 10:27 AM   #60
Loyal Site Supporter
GlassJunkie's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: St Petersburg
Photos: Albums
Posts: 379
I think I'll fan the flames

QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
From Pentax's stand point, there is absolutely no reason to make a full frame camera if no one buys new lenses (from Pentax). The idea that Pentax would make a camera purely so that folks could mount legacy glass on it is absurd. Camera companies make more money on glass than on the camera bodies.

As to the older lenses being optically better, it depends on the lens. Coatings have improved over time, obviously auto focus was not present on the older lenses you mention, and with computers, there have been improvements in zoom design.

Just to set the record straight, Pentax has licensed the lens designs for many of the DA lenses to Tokina, not the reverse. The only DA lens that Tokina owns the patent on the lens design is the DA 12-24.
Pentax has licensed far more designs to lens makers (4 I know of) than the other way around. In early AF, SAFOX and most of the Nikon AFs came from Pentax. SMC (multicoaring) was an Asahi discovery, all of the majors paid royalties for years..... Takumar and Rokkor collaborated on glass raw materials. Ricoh and many others including Samsung licensed K-Mounts.and on and on.... Ricoh bought an intellectual property diamond for pennies and cut their learning curve (expanding beyond compacts/point and shoot) by years in one deal. It was like buying an R&D company that paid for it self in one deal....
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
24x36mm, analysis, bodies, body, camera, da*, discussions, dslr, ff, focus, forum, frame, full-frame, glass, glasses, lenses, level, line, money, pentax, people, photography, premium, price, sony, tamron, time
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
why is a full frame Pentax such a holy grail? adwb Pentax Full Frame 427 07-24-2015 12:32 PM
From Full-Frame Sony... to Pentax... to Full-Frame Canon Mr_Canuck Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 42 01-21-2014 12:50 AM
Interesting link on full frame vs film ChopperCharles Pentax DSLR Discussion 7 09-14-2012 09:26 AM
Is a full frame camera worth $1k to $1.3k feasible to make? mannyquinto Pentax DSLR Discussion 17 04-19-2012 01:36 PM
Is a full frame lens on an aps-c, a negative? outsider Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 36 03-30-2011 09:34 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:21 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top