[monochrome]

Brilliant!

$5 to the first person that can post a picture of a "Pentax" camera that has no other corporate name on it!

I thought we were talking about branding.

I was responding to johnmflores and assumed you were posting a picture of a Pentax-only camera - but this is truly getting silly now.

[krebsy75]

Ricoh bugs me for doubling lens pricing without adding further value. Beyond that, they are the best thing to happen to Pentax in a long time.

[c.a.m]

Upon unboxing it I saw a label on the bottom stating "Pentax Ricoh Imaging Co.Ltd." and it seems to be "Made in China" to add insult to injurie! Do you all think I should ditch it?

The label says "Pentax..." ? Oh-oh, I think you should return it - it's not pure Ricoh.

- Craig

[toukan]

Would you rather have a camera with "Hasselblad" or one with "Fisher-Price" added to the name? I've never desired to own anything Ricoh. I didn't know about until a co-worker asked if he could borrow a lens when he thought the mounts looked similar back in '81.

First of all, both of those names only have significance because of their histories and the quality of the products. If Fisher-Price had been making Leica-quality cameras for the last 50 years, it wouldn't matter to me if my camera said Fisher-Price (in fact I would be happy about it). Ricoh has been known as a quality manufacturer for quite a while, just primarily in other product areas.

Second of all, you do realize of course that that '81 was 32 YEARS AGO....so in and of itself that indicates that Ricoh isn't a fly-by-night newcomer.

Personally, I hope they keep the Pentax name on their cameras, both because of the connection to the Pentax heritage, and because, while not as recognizable today as Canon, Nikon, etc, it still carries some cache' in the photography world (certainly more than Ricoh). But that being said, Ricoh paid a ton of $$ for Pentax. That, plus the additional investment they have made since in the products earns it the right to place their name on them.

[snake]

Ricoh bugs me for doubling lens pricing without adding further value. Beyond that, they are the best thing to happen to Pentax in a long time.

I could have sworn that it was under Hoya that the prices were doubled and Ricoh simply continued Pentax's pricing policies with a mostly hands off approach.

[Colbyt]

If this point has been posted I apologize but I am not reading 11 pages of this to find out.

I'm sure the Lincoln, Mercury, Oldsmobile groups felt the same way. Get over it. Ricoh owns the Pentax brand. They bought and paid for it.

I personally think maintaining the brand identity is in their best interest but the choice is theirs as is the choice to buy or not is yours.

[krebsy75]

Someone mentioned that Ricoh paid "a ton of money" for Pentax. $200 million is chump change for a global manufacturer of technology like Ricoh. CHUMP CHANGE!

[toukan]

Someone mentioned that Ricoh paid "a ton of money" for Pentax. $200 million is chump change for a global manufacturer of technology like Ricoh. CHUMP CHANGE!

It may not be a lot of money compared to the size of the company, but do you think for a second that it is not a lot of money? Also, do you think for a second that some junior level manager could make a decision to spend $200M? Not a chance. And do you think someone wouldn't get fired in a nanosecond for squandering $200M? Even if the company was Microsoft or Apple or Exxon, it is still a lot of money, and expenditures of that size are only done after extensive research, planning, and due diligence, and are only approved at high-level management.

[krebsy75]

toukan: I can't argue with anything you said.

snake: The increase in lens pricing was absolutely done under Ricoh's realm. And it was outlandish. That's when I stopped recommending Pentax to people. Overnight Pentax glass went from undercutting Canikon to becoming premium in comparison. This is still an issue. I don't think a single lens is worth MSRP.

[jac]

I am truly disgusted by Ricoh's flagrant abuse of my right to instant gratification. I was expecting something that was FF, could fit in my shirt pocket, could be operated by remote using satellite connection through GPS and came c/w adapters to fit all that CaNikon glass. Where is the propulsion system and Artficial Intelligence module that will save my from walking around in the country-side, getting my shoes muddy instead of sitting on the couch getting caffeine withdrawal? I didn't even see any sign 'the box' includes a set of stencils so that I can brand it with my own personal favorite name. In fact my Grandfather, who knew McLaughlin personally, almost never forgave him for selling out and letting his beauties be called McLaughlin - Buick.
With no hope in sight, me and my little KIIs will have to do things the hard way, auto focusing when applicable or (horrors) pre-focus at the kids games until my dreams are brought to fruition by Kodak, Polaroid or some other obscure outfit. Gawd knows what I'll do with the LX.
The K3 looks like great little camera. Had I not splurged on the IIs in July, I'd be suffering some serious CBA. (Actually I am but I'm fighting it with long walks in the fresh air with another great camera from the makers of Pentax.)

[Dave L]

My ME Super isn't; it's "pure Pentax"

My ME Super has "Asahi Opt. Co., Japan" embossed at the foot of the rear film box lid holder. They do seem to have done it in several different ways though, so I won't argue with you.

The real point is though, that PENTAX has always been a brand, created and owned by Asahi (which had cameras and lenses before PENTAX was created) and changed its name to Pentax Corporation as recently as 2002 IIRC. That phase of its history lasted only 5 years before Hoya bought the company/brand, and then RICOH.

So for most of its life, the PENTAX brand was owned by one company or another, who in most cases stamped their company name somewhere on the camera. I do miss Asahi, though. I don't miss Hoya.

Anyway, Nikon is owned by Mitsubishi and that doesn't seem to have done them much harm.

[NaClH2O]

Back is fine with me, that's no big deal. I do think it's very important to keep the Pentax name on the front.

More people are likely to be excited by the new Jaguar F-type than a Tata F-type...

Oh, I don't know, I might just get quite excited about F-type tatas!

NaCl(double D's are quite large, can you imagine what F-types might look like? )

[jogiba]

Someone mentioned that Ricoh paid "a ton of money" for Pentax. $200 million is chump change for a global manufacturer of technology like Ricoh. CHUMP CHANGE!

" In a stunning move in which two smaller, financially struggling but very innovative camera manufacturers will join forces, Hoya Corporation, which bought Pentax in 2008, has just sold its Pentax Imaging Systems division to Ricoh Company, Ltd. for $128 million dollars. According to a press release distributed this morning, all of Pentax's business assets and shares will be transferred to Ricoh, with the merger expected to be completed by October.

With this transaction, Ricoh overnight has become a major player in the DSLR and interchangeable-lens compact camera market. But it could also be the first of many dominoes to fall. The Nikkei business daily says “the move by Ricoh could trigger a major industry realignment.” Ricoh will take over Hoya's domestic and overseas production bases, employees and Pentax brand, according to Nikkei.

Two Struggling Brands

In May, Ricoh announced it would cut 10,000 jobs—10% of its workforce. Ricoh's digital camera business has been unprofitable but the company hopes Pentax's established sales channels in the US will reverse its fortunes. Hoya shipped 1.63 million digital cameras in 2010, down 10% from 2009. Ricoh is said to have shipped less than half a million cameras. "
RICOH BUYS PENTAX from Adorama Learning Center

[jeff knight]

Get over it. Ricoh owns the Pentax brand. They bought and paid for it.

What you are apparently too insensitive to comprehend is that many Pentaxians have been, and still are, fiercely loyal to Pentax. Ricoh has been a camera manufacturer with it's own style, reputation, research and development team, and patent base. The Ricoh camera division was a competitor to Pentax previous to purchasing it. (though probably a minor one) This is not like Hoya buying Pentax, or Honeywell distributing Pentax or any other of these corporate configurations people love to mention here. So there are some fierce loyalists out there that are understandably upset to see the Ricoh name on the camera. It's the end of an era and the start of a new one.

I personally hope this melding of Ricoh and Pentax teams makes the new cameras better and better and that Ricoh succeeds.

I'll buy the K-3 but I'm still a little sad. We should appreciate the fierce Pentax loyalists here and not jump to cannibalize our own. They may need time to get over it. If they can't I'm not going to bitch them out for it!

[monochrome]

Someone mentioned that Ricoh paid "a ton of money" for Pentax. $200 million is chump change for a global manufacturer of technology like Ricoh. CHUMP CHANGE!

It may not be a lot of money compared to the size of the company, but do you think for a second that it is not a lot of money? Also, do you think for a second that some junior level manager could make a decision to spend $200M? Not a chance. And do you think someone wouldn't get fired in a nanosecond for squandering $200M? Even if the company was Microsoft or Apple or Exxon, it is still a lot of money, and expenditures of that size are only done after extensive research, planning, and due diligence, and are only approved at high-level management.

It was $128MM, not $200MM, but that isn't the cost. That only reflects the price for empty husk left by Hoya. The real cost will be the hundreds of millions of dollars Ricoh will invest rebuilding the brand - literally so much money that financial analysts refer to Digicams as a risk to their earnings estimates if Ricoh proceeds with their plan.

Pentax isn't such Chump Change after all.