[LFLee]

I can't find anything that is "Ricoh" in the K3.
No special menu system.
No special feature that is found on Ricoh cameras only.
No transplanted technology.
Every single thing about the K3 screams of K5 mark III.

Make sense! So far we only see GR now have TAv, but no Ricoh tech in PENTAX product yet. And the menu system and high level of customization is where the GR get a lot of praises. Should have implemented in K-3! Would be also great if some of the B&W conversion that well received in GR also available in K-3. But as you said, the "tech sharing" part appear to be a 1 direction so far: PENTAX -> Ricoh.

[mrNewt]

Since we are at the chapter "Say what you think"...

Ever considered that maybe the budget that was put behind this camera and came from Ricoh is quite a big effort?
Ever considered that maybe looks wise Ricoh didn't want to go too crazy so it kept it familiar to not scare off users and fans?

Maybe looks doesn't show the involvement of Ricoh, but without it, you would not have this camera for sure... so a small logo at the back is a small price to be paid.
I'm actually very surprised people are reacting so strong. Is like they have forgot that Ricoh IS the hand that is feeding the Pentax .

No smart company will implement radical changes right away... everything will be slow and in baby steps.

[Pioneer]

You acted like this in high school? you must be a really late bloomer.


"The immaturity shown on this thread has nothing at all to do with LaurenOE's action" I agree 100%, the immaturity started when she decided to post and brag about it like she is some kind of badass with tape and a marker, if she didn't want a reaction then she could have kept it to herself, if someone did call her "stupid" or "immature" then maybe the shoe fits.


And, btw. Ricoh doesn't need your favor, they will survive just fine with you going to another brand.... and take the "black tape bandit" and a few other whiners with you.

Oh, I am a late bloomer. Thanks for noticing. And btw, I have always been aware that most huge corporations, like Ricoh, maybe even all of them, really could care less about anything you or I say or do, unless we own a LOT of their stock.

As for your other point, I actually didn't notice her bragging about being a "badass with tape and a marker." If I am not mistaken those are your words. I did notice her making a comment that she felt that Ricoh was attempting to take credit for a product they had little or no part in developing by placing their name prominently on said camera. Obviously you believe that they did have a huge part in building that camera, though it was easier for you to repeat the "stupid" and "immature" comments already made then to actually respond to her comment.

However, I am pretty sure that LaurenOE can voice her own opinions and probably doesn't need me, or anyone else, defending her statements.

[K David]

I'm actually really happy to have the Ricoh logo on it. I don't see Ricoh dropping the Pentax brand name. It definitely has more cache than Ricoh in most camera markets. Besides, I think it serves to remind us of why we have such a great camera -- Ricoh is making something of Pentax that Hoya lacked the ability or interest to do.

[monochrome]

Even the recent K-3 is still a product that was already in the Hoya pipeline.

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.

[alcstudios]

Oh, I am a late bloomer. Thanks for noticing. And btw, I have always been aware that most huge corporations, like Ricoh, maybe even all of them, really could care less about anything you or I say or do, unless we own a LOT of their stock.

As for your other point, I actually didn't notice her bragging about being a "badass with tape and a marker." If I am not mistaken those are your words. I did notice her making a comment that she felt that Ricoh was attempting to take credit for a product they had little or no part in developing by placing their name prominently on said camera. Obviously you believe that they did have a huge part in building that camera, though it was easier for you to repeat the "stupid" and "immature" comments already made then to actually respond to her comment.

However, I am pretty sure that LaurenOE can voice her own opinions and probably doesn't need me, or anyone else, defending her statements.

Exactly how much development did Ricoh put into the K3? You should enlighten us all.

[mrNewt]

Exactly how much development did Ricoh put into the K3? You should enlighten us all.

$$$ ... that part that usually gets overlooked ... where do you think the budget support came from to built this camera!? I'm also pretty sure they had some involvement in ironing some things out...

Plus... Pentax IS Ricoh... they own it... enough said.

[monochrome]

Exactly how much development did Ricoh put into the K3? You should enlighten us all.

I suppose we can enver know. But something surely changed after Ricoh bought Pentax. I cannot imagine Hoya investing this much in a new camera body.

[alcstudios]

I fixed my K3 too

[alcstudios]

$$$ ... that part that usually gets overlooked ... where do you think the budget support came from to built this camera!? I'm also pretty sure they had some involvement in ironing some things out...

Plus... Pentax IS Ricoh... they own it... enough said.

Dude, I was being sarcastic towards Pioneer.

[Pioneer]

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?

As others have mentioned, Ricoh is in charge of the purse, and it was their decision to move ahead with the K3. But to be honest, I am not sure why they would have stopped it unless it was a total flub, which it doesn't seem it is.

I have never disputed that Ricoh owns Pentax. As the owner they can do anything they like with Pentax. Like many others I do hope they intend to further develop and improve the brand. Unlike others I have not viewed a lot of their moves in the last year as being Pentax brand-friendly. I do hope I am very, very wrong.

But that probably won't stop me from throwing a few jabs every now and then.

And if someone did give me a K3 I would tape over the Ricoh name on the back.

[mrNewt]

Dude, I was being sarcastic towards Pioneer.

Owww... can't read sarcasm... sorry!

And if someone did give me a K3 I would tape over the Ricoh name on the back.

Each to its own - I'm a strong supporter of that!
I doubt you will get that lucky though unless you cough up the money

[lister6520]

I have a lot of respect for Ricoh and I'm sure Pentax is now in much better hands than it was with Hoya. I cannot actually understand why anyone can be unhappy about Pentax being 'adopted' by Ricoh. I see Pentax, having been the unwanted adopted child of Hoya, has now found a loving new parent who actually cares for it.

That said, In Ricoh's shoes I would have kept back from putting the name in such a prominent place. Imagine if Hoya had put their name on the rear LCD, or if Nikons were to have a big Mitsubishi printed under the LCD. Sony of course did one worse by putting their name even on the front.

In any case, I have already been in a situation where I wish there had been Pentax on the back. I was shooting birds (with the camera, not lead) and one cahp was interested in the lens (Sigma 150-500 Sigma). I told him to have a look for himself through the viewfinder and also some shots I had taken. As often happens he asked 'Is that a Nikon or a Canon'. I replied, 'No it's a ...' but before I could say it he said 'Ricoh? isn't that a photocopier'. So I had to explain that no, it is actually a Pentax. 'A what? Here it says Ricoh'.

Anyway if I were ever to get the urge to change something I would add Pentax but still keep the Ricoh label and have Pentax Ricoh or Ricoh Pentax It would feel wrong for me to remove the Ricoh label, but at the same time I would love to have Pentax on the back, which is after all what people see when you are showing people the pictures you shot.

The Pentax label on the back of previous cameras has often started interesting conversations especially with people like me who remember Pentax from the film days but had no idea that they still made digital cameras, much less digital SLRs. Having people try to figure out why there is the name of a photocopier on a camera is not quite the same thing.

[philbaum]

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?
)

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.

[Boc]

Is this really the biggest problem? 5 letters under the LCD? I would be more concerned about maybe 3-6% of sold items being rendered unusable by soft- or hardware issues... The issue in my opinion is not the branding but the quality control and whether this is related to Ricoh or not.