[Pioneer]

I think that Sony may have kept calling the cameras Minoltas if they had been able but I understand that the Minolta name did not go with sale of the camera division to Sony.

However, I do find the decision to put "Ricoh" on the back to be a slip on their part and it is confusing.

Such is life. I guess we all wait and see how things develop. I do hope it works because I, like most here, want Pentax to continue as a distinct and recognizable camera brand. If the name Ricoh has to be on that camera then everyone will probably survive. But I for one am not a Ricoh fanboy.

But I do like alcstudios idea. Somehow I need to figure out how to engrave my name above the Pentax name on the front.

[Not a Number]

Too bad the EXIF data says "RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD." as the camera manufacturer, but you can always edit your images.

"What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet"

[alcstudios]

I think that Sony may have kept calling the cameras Minoltas if they had been able but I understand that the Minolta name did not go with sale of the camera division to Sony.

However, I do find the decision to put "Ricoh" on the back to be a slip on their part and it is confusing.

Such is life. I guess we all wait and see how things develop. I do hope it works because I, like most here, want Pentax to continue as a distinct and recognizable camera brand. If the name Ricoh has to be on that camera then everyone will probably survive. But I for one am not a Ricoh fanboy.

But I do like alcstudios idea. Somehow I need to figure out how to engrave my name above the Pentax name on the front.

Thank you Pioneer, and that's not photoshop, that's the real deal

[Pioneer]

I would be very surprised if Ricoh didn't have some technology to contribute to the Pentax products, AND DID. Before retirement, i was an engineer, then supervisor and eventually manager in a manufacturing area. I've seen organizations go downhill in their effectiveness because they lacked too little background/skill diversity, too little new input.

I cheered when i heard that Ricoh taking over Pentax was a done thing - in my opinion, its a very good thing to have different viewpoints at the table. When we had a large and expensive technical problem to solve quickly, it was not unusual to borrow temp. help from other areas of the company to solve the problem. And actually, at the working level, people seemed to enjoy the challenge of working on short term critical problems.

I agree that Ricoh has had some input. But I didn't feel Pentax technology was struggling. Their problem was actually more marketing and advertising related. From that perspective I do hope that Ricoh provides some much needed help in this area. I have not always been terribly encouraged with what I have seen. The decision to introduce a larger selection of cameras is good but increasing the price of lenses is not. The introductory prices on a couple of recent cameras has been decent but the price for the K-01 was a joke.

I know everyone looks at Ricoh as the great saviour of Pentax but I am not real sure why. They have dabbled in cameras for years but they have never been a very big player, not even as big a player as Pentax was. Maybe Pentax is more important in saving the Ricoh camera division than Ricoh is in saving Pentax.

[monochrome]

I don't know how much development was Ricoh and how much was Pentax. However, as Lauren has so capably mentioned already, there is nothing on the K3, besides the name on the back screen, that replicates any technology that Ricoh has used in their own branded products. Maybe that is because they had nothing worthwhile to contribute?

One of Ricoh's known strengths as a company is in manufacturing processes and quality control built into those processes. We will likely never know how much money Ricoh invested in the Pentax production facilites adding machines and modern assembly tools and concepts to Pentax's wopefully inadequate locations. We'll never know whether part of the problem merging the engineering teams lay in convincing Pentax engineers to design into the new process capabilities - perhjaps they just didn't know how to do that, We'll never know how many Ricoh patents were applied to Pentax manufacturing processes invisibly (they own loads of process patents). There's lots we'll never know about what Ricoh contributed to the K3 because we can't see it.

In fact. I'd suggest one of the reasons it took Ricoh so long to introduce a product that wasn't clearly from Pentax's catalog might have been because they had so much work to do on the manufacturing side frist.

And should you think that doesn't matter, consider the possibility that Pentax could not have even made this camera without Ricoh's manufacturing processes, or at least not at this price.

So when we ask how much Ricoh is in the Pentax camera perhaps we need to think about the camera itself in a little more expansive fashion. I'm actually surprised the RIOCH print is as small as it is given how MUCH of the camera is RICOH.

[normhead]

What is there left of Pentax…. new processing engine, new AF, new shutter, new sensor, mag-alloy chassis… left over from the Pentax days?

[philbaum]

I agree that Ricoh has had some input. But I didn't feel Pentax technology was struggling. Their problem was actually more marketing and advertising related. From that perspective I do hope that Ricoh provides some much needed help in this area. I have not always been terribly encouraged with what I have seen. The decision to introduce a larger selection of cameras is good but increasing the price of lenses is not. The introductory prices on a couple of recent cameras has been decent but the price for the K-01 was a joke.

I know everyone looks at Ricoh as the great saviour of Pentax but I am not real sure why. They have dabbled in cameras for years but they have never been a very big player, not even as big a player as Pentax was. Maybe Pentax is more important in saving the Ricoh camera division than Ricoh is in saving Pentax.

I'm not responding to argue with you, but just to show you there are differing points of view. I've been buying Pentax since 2007, which is not a lot of time compared to many on this forum, but still...

A. I felt the processing power in the camera was lacking, after taking 5 shots rapidly, my K5 would take a seriously long time recording them to Class 10 extreme cards - for whatever that is worth.

B. The K01 was met with excessive disapproval by many Pentaxians and others. It didn't seem like it was sell thought out or spec-ed out. Rather than take on the challenge and revise K01, they chose to quickly cancel the model. That showed a lack of market savy and perhaps a lack of resources. Ricoh's own camera models are usually met with approval from what i gather.

C. I'm just wowed by the number of new features and things that Ricoh has fixed with the Pentax system since they've been in charge, some new flashes, fixing some bugs with over exposure in the k5 flash system, double cards, in the same chasis, AA on or off option, much more processing speed, upgraded lens coatings, etc.

For all the money they've put into Pentax, Ricoh has to try to balance the books with profit from somewhere. I think you'll see lenses prices continue to go up and down. just buy when lens prices are down, even Nikon has a lens sale once a year.

As i understand it, (i'm not going back to confirm it, correct me if i'm wrong anyone) but from what i've read, Ricoh has basically taken the lead position on business copiers away from Canon, on a world wide basis. Its true that the copier business is not expanding much due to greater usage of digital copies, but still, it takes a lot of moxie to compete internationally against the likes of Canon, and win!

[BeetleStuff]

Sure it's probably immature.

Nothing immature about permanently removing the Ricoh labelling from your K3 if you are not happy with it - its your property and you can customise it to your taste, I do it all the time.

The tape on the other hand demonstrates your level of conviction about it.

[LaurenOE]

Really? I mean, nominally there might have been a plan for a better K-mount dSLR but I'd like to see the breakdown of engineering done by the combined Pentax / Ricoh teams versus that done by the Pentax / Hoya team. I'd bet of new engineering this camera is principally Ricoh work - or at worst Ricoh re-work of uninspired Hoya work.

Furthermore, my take is that Ricoh isn't just maintaining the Pentax brand name - they're actually living the Pentax brand ethic. This is a Pentax camera through and through with a bit of white paint silk screened on the LCD.

And frankly I think Lauren is mostly just having a bit of fun at her own expense - I mean she actually laughs at her own immaturity. She bought the camera, didn't she? She'll buy two more of them if she stays true to her past form. And she'll get new lenses if they'll help her work, and grips and flashes.

Hell, she's putting the children of her B&H rep through college.

This is like one of those posts where you quote the other guy, strike through some offending bit of text within the quote, then you write, "There. Fixed it for 'ya." Except Lauren fixed her own post.

Yep. There are whiners, and there are buyers. Only buyers can really be whiners.

There are few bigger fans of Pentax than me.
Black Friday is coming up, and hopefully another K3 and grip.

Wait until I post *another* pick with Ricoh's brand crossed out!
Won't that make the world spin!

[LaurenOE]

One of Ricoh's known strengths as a company is in manufacturing processes and quality control built into those processes. We will likely never know how much money Ricoh invested in the Pentax production facilites adding machines and modern assembly tools and concepts to Pentax's wopefully inadequate locations. We'll never know whether part of the problem merging the engineering teams lay in convincing Pentax engineers to design into the new process capabilities - perhjaps they just didn't know how to do that, We'll never know how many Ricoh patents were applied to Pentax manufacturing processes invisibly (they own loads of process patents). There's lots we'll never know about what Ricoh contributed to the K3 because we can't see it.

In fact. I'd suggest one of the reasons it took Ricoh so long to introduce a product that wasn't clearly from Pentax's catalog might have been because they had so much work to do on the manufacturing side frist.

And should you think that doesn't matter, consider the possibility that Pentax could not have even made this camera without Ricoh's manufacturing processes, or at least not at this price.

So when we ask how much Ricoh is in the Pentax camera perhaps we need to think about the camera itself in a little more expansive fashion. I'm actually surprised the RIOCH print is as small as it is given how MUCH of the camera is RICOH.

I'm not so sure that Ricoh did as much as you think.
I think it's really a stretch.
Ramping up facilities takes a year or two and the associated verticals to make that happen.
ERP systems don't materialize from the retail shelf at Best Buy.

Like I said, I have no real hate for Ricoh.

However, if for a minute, they are as benevolent as you say, and their invisible processes are the "secret sauce" in the new K5 Mark III - er K3, I mean Pentax K5 Mar - K3, then having invisible confidence like B.A.S.F. would be enough.

Kinda like Ricoh, saying "we don't make the (Pentax) cameras, we make them better".

All I've said in this delightful thread, is that I'm not buying it.
Seeing Ricoh on the back of the camera is a lie.
You can't just gloss over my loyalty and tell me there is some "hidden" awesomeness that is secret for all to see!

Brand loyalty doesn't work that way.

Show me some hard data that shows that Ricoh has a meaningful contribution aside from being a Pentax "sugar daddy/pimp".

[crewl1]

Speaking of sugar I hear that a sugar cube can be used to rub off silk screened logos without damaging the plastic underneath.

Don't know how I will feel about the logo myself as I am K-3less still but am reqdy to pounce if a Black Friday deal materiizes.

I will be watching the pricing forum but Lauren if you hear anything first please send a note

[LaurenOE]

Speaking of sugar I hear that a sugar cube can be used to rub off silk screened logos without damaging the plastic underneath.

Don't know how I will feel about the logo myself as I am K-3less still but am reqdy to pounce if a Black Friday deal materiizes.

I will be watching the pricing forum but Lauren if you hear anything first please send a note

LOL. I *really* am having a bit of fun in this thread. I love Mono and you (obviously) and having started this thread a day ago, and seeing the views/replies?

Wow.

If you are like me, when you start using the K3, and enjoy what you see, and what it does, you will find that using the camera will always have that Ricoh label staring back at you.

Because of the placement of the Ricoh brand on the back of the camera, Ricoh is rubbing their nose, in *your nose* - literally.
Think about that for a second.
Ricoh is rubbing close to you, cheek to cheek.

You thought you'd get closer to Pentax, but Ricoh slips it close to you at the last second!

Instead of getting that little hit of - "Wow, I really love this Pentax K3", you will get a twinge of "Ricoh in your face" - literally.

Rico-suave!

So with Ricoh rubbing it in your nose, and in your face, and cheek to cheek, it's just too much to handle, when all you want, is to continue your relationship with your loved Pentax.

[DennisH]

I still don't get why it matters to you that Ricoh "lied." Their corporate arrogance really bothers you? They should have just left their name off their product until they made one that meets some certain amount of input to truly call their own?

Baffling.

[LaurenOE]

I still don't get why it matters to you that Ricoh "lied." Their corporate arrogance really bothers you? They should have just left their name off their product until they made one that meets some certain amount of input to truly call their own?

Baffling.

Bingo!

[jatrax]

K5 Mark III - er K3, I mean Pentax K5 Mar - K3,

Ha, ha

Brand loyalty doesn't work that way.

Quite correct, brand loyalty is in many ways irrational and does not always follow a truly logical path

Ramping up facilities takes a year or two and the associated verticals to make that happen.

Hmm, I thought the purchase was final October 1, 2011? So two years to ramp up, rebuild, upgrade facilities.

Show me some hard data that shows that Ricoh has a meaningful contribution aside from being a Pentax "sugar daddy/pimp".

I don't think that is possible. But Asahi Man has stated that the k-3 was present at PhotoKina last year but Ricoh pulled the plug on it as they were not happy with it. So (for me) if the only contribution Ricoh has made is to make sure what goes out the door is 'right' before it does, then I'm happy.

I see this as a merger of Ricoh manufacturing technology and Pentax camera engineering. Ricoh does not have to bring any camera tech to the table, indeed if they had their own DSLR technology why would they buy Pentax? What they do need to bring is manufacturing ability, capital and worldwide market presence.

Personally I am delighted to NOT see a whole lot of Ricoh in this camera. We all loved the k-5 ergonomics, menus, etc, etc. They could have changed the whole camera menu, revised the ergonomics or a number of other things to put their 'stamp' on it, but they didn't. They kept the best parts, added some new things, and improved the areas people were complaining about. What's not to like?

I'm OK with the Ricoh on the back, but I have a prior relationship with Ricoh on the copier side. Which has been very good. I would strongly recommend them for the quality of the machines and the service they provide. So I have a "brand loyalty" to Ricoh already. I'm OK with you not liking it on the back. And I am very happy you got it 'fixed'. But I take the Ricoh on the back a little differently. I think they are just saying they helped produce an excellent camera, are proud of it and don't mind having their name on it.

If anyone doesn't like seeing Ricoh on the back then they can just Laurenize™ it