[clackers]

.


Get down on your knees and pay homage to the saviour of Pentax - Ricoh god love them and long may they prosper.
.

Stockholm Syndrome is a terrible thing!

[monochrome]

The fact that Pentax was up for sale means it was and still is a shaky business, it was always a niche business and Nikon and Canon are suffering dwindling sales as point and shoots are killed by smartphones and dSLR sales are threatened.

Actually, the camera division was for sale because cameras don't earn 20% ROIC, which Hoya requires of each of its divisions. Cameras earn 8% or 9% ROIC. Even Pentax understood that and had diversified accordingly.

Hoya rescued Pentax from SPARXX (Japan's largest activist hedge fund) who would have truly destroyed the entire company, but Hoya also stripped Pentax of every productive asset it possibly could, including every decent optical engineer it didn't fire - then it sold the empty husk to Ricoh for $115,000,000 with the understanding Ricoh would need to invest another $250,000,000 to rebuild the company. Just for starters.

Hoya is essentially a corporate raider without the stigma.

[clackers]

Actually, the camera division was for sale because cameras don't earn 20% ROIC, which Hoya requires of each of its divisions ... Etc etc

Very interesting.

[LaurenOE]

Actually, the camera division was for sale because cameras don't earn 20% ROIC, which Hoya requires of each of its divisions. Cameras earn 8% or 9% ROIC. Even Pentax understood that and had diversified accordingly.

Hoya rescued Pentax from SPARXX (Japan's largest activist hedge fund) who would have truly destroyed the entire company, but Hoya also stripped Pentax of every productive asset it possibly could, including every decent optical engineer it didn't fire - then it sold the empty husk to Ricoh for $115,000,000 with the understanding Ricoh would need to invest another $250,000,000 to rebuild the company. Just for starters.

Hoya is essentially a corporate raider without the stigma.

Yep. True enough.

[MarkJerling]

.
Job openings/postings for my team are like this...

"Knowledge of dSLR photography and digital cinema photography, with an emphasis on Pentax dSLR cameras is a plus."

I will be buying more and more Pentax, and my team and the organization see what Pentax can do.

Not. One. Single. Time. Do. I. Mention. Ricoh.

Revenge of the Pentaxians.

Cool! Go Lauren!!!

[Imageman]

Actually, the camera division was for sale because cameras don't earn 20% ROIC, which Hoya requires of each of its divisions. Cameras earn 8% or 9% ROIC. Even Pentax understood that and had diversified accordingly.

Hoya rescued Pentax from SPARXX (Japan's largest activist hedge fund) who would have truly destroyed the entire company, but Hoya also stripped Pentax of every productive asset it possibly could, including every decent optical engineer it didn't fire - then it sold the empty husk to Ricoh for $115,000,000 with the understanding Ricoh would need to invest another $250,000,000 to rebuild the company. Just for starters.

Hoya is essentially a corporate raider without the stigma.

So Pentax was dismembered and was not seen as profitable then sold on to Ricoh for a huge amount, on the understanding that Ricoh would have to invest heavily, and they did.


Isnt this exactly what ive just said.


Pentax were dead in the water until Ricoh stepped up invested in them and saved them. So lets be grateful they did.

[monochrome]

Pentax were dead in the water until Ricoh stepped up invested in them and saved them. So lets be grateful they did.

I think everybody gets that. Doesn't mean we cannot hop Ricoh keeps the special parts of Pentax special. Doesn't mean Lauren has to like Ricoh paint on the back.

Every Pentax camera had the corporate name painted on the bottom: Pentax Corporation, Hoya Corporation, Ricoh Imaging. No one complained.

[interested_observer]

Actually, the camera division was for sale because cameras don't earn 20% ROIC, which Hoya requires of each of its divisions. Cameras earn 8% or 9% ROIC. Even Pentax understood that and had diversified accordingly.

Hoya rescued Pentax from SPARXX (Japan's largest activist hedge fund) who would have truly destroyed the entire company, but Hoya also stripped Pentax of every productive asset it possibly could, including every decent optical engineer it didn't fire - then it sold the empty husk to Ricoh for $115,000,000 with the understanding Ricoh would need to invest another $250,000,000 to rebuild the company. Just for starters.

Hoya is essentially a corporate raider without the stigma.

One of the reasons I came to Pentax, other than shooting with Pentax in the past and having an old body and lens, was the optics - specifically its reputation - and the inbody stabilization. I went digital right as Hoya was acquiring Pentax. Yes, unfortunately - Hoya stripped Pentax of its optical engineers, while also dumping its telescope business - of which they also had an excellent reputation in. I came across this interesting observation - as an aside...

• Hoya Founder's Grandson Calls Pentax Acquisition One Of Company "Failures"

I guess what goes around, comes around as the saying goes. No good deed goes unpunished.

Having said all of that, on the bright side - the core of Pentax did survive to some degree. Also, in spite of loosing a lot of their optical expertise - they did manage to gain in a very unexpected area, and that is semiconductor core logic. Pentax has managed to be able to take the Sony sensors, and add some additional "pixie" dust - as you will, in order to fine tune in some additional character - excellent dynamic range, better image quality at higher than normal ISOs, etc. They have done a bit better than Sony itself, and Nikon (D7000). They might have lost a lot of their optical engineering expertise, but we can still use the older lenses - to our advantage.

Ricoh's core investment is starting to show through - auto focus has been improving - although more needs to be done. Also, we can start to see some cross pollination with the G line (what GX and GR). It does not happen over night - but I am seeing a slowly evolving path that they are taking shape.

[Kunzite]

As much as some folks here poo-poo'ed me about this, it was a concern in the real world.
Quite a few reviews mentioned the Ricoh on the back, and it was met with poor reception.

No, it was a "concern" only in some "pentaxian" circles. "Pentaxians" would find the most ridiculous reasons to bash "their" brand, and then there are people who would gladly join the bashing for different reasons.

In the real world, the Alpha mount didn't end just because Sony bought Konica-Minolta's camera division; and in that case, the Konica-Minolta camera brand ceased to exist. Why it would be so much worse with the surviving Pentax brand? Because of a tiny inscription below the back LCD? Come on...

And yes, I like the Pentax brand much better than Ricoh. But what I really like is not the 6-letter inscriptions, but the products - if I have to "suffer" seeing Ricoh under the back LCD, so be it. It's better than with Hoya. It's better than with an electronic giant who would kill the brand (like Sony did). It's better than with a Chinese company using the brand to make cheap, cheesy copies (Kodak, anyone?). It's probably better than with JVC.

Ricoh is the best thing that could have happened to Pentax, since Hoya's hostile takeover. (MHO)

Hoya rescued Pentax from SPARXX (Japan's largest activist hedge fund) who would have truly destroyed the entire company, but Hoya also stripped Pentax of every productive asset it possibly could, including every decent optical engineer it didn't fire - then it sold the empty husk to Ricoh for $115,000,000 with the understanding Ricoh would need to invest another $250,000,000 to rebuild the company. Just for starters.

Hoya worked with SPARXX in order to take over Pentax, they were both accomplices in killing Pentax Corporation; what kind of "rescue" is that?

[LaurenOE]

So Pentax was dismembered and was not seen as profitable then sold on to Ricoh for a huge amount, on the understanding that Ricoh would have to invest heavily, and they did.

Isnt this exactly what ive just said.

Pentax were dead in the water until Ricoh stepped up invested in them and saved them. So lets be grateful they did.

Not exactly. I don't agree Pentax was dead - see the tons of pages that have come before this thread-reawakening.
That might be the *new* narrative, but it doesn't fit with reality.

I know there was/is a core group of Pentaxians who have been the ones buying Pentax through the thick and thin.
I am one of those, so my loyalty to Pentax has never been questioned.
I am old school Pentax, and I have bought almost every single flagship dSLR since the *ist-D.

I have zero problem with Ricoh coming in and investing and making Pentax a better camera.

It's *how* Ricoh has been doing it. Ricoh on the back of a K5 Mark III - aka the K3 is pushing their contribution.

In 2014, there is not a SINGLE product that was not in prototype form under Pentax/Hoya under Ricoh.

Ricoh has not given us anything that would not have come along had Hoya not stripped the company.

If you want to talk failures, the Ricoh GXR was/is a TOTAL failure.

So Pentax was NEVER a failed company, just mismanaged.
That is a BIG difference to thinking Pentax was a bunch of flunkies and Ricoh came and straightened them out. Maybe the bean counters, but not the core Pentax folks.

The core of Pentax has always been Japanese optical excellence, and so far, Ricoh's contribution has been behind the scenes.

The whole point of this thread was putting Ricoh on the back of the K3.
The K3 is basically a K5 with some substantial tweaks.

When Ricoh comes out with something they can claim as their own brilliance and not something from the Pentax/Hoya brain trust, is when I will have no problem putting Ricoh on the back of the camera.

Hmmm...I think I might have said the same thing in many posts previous to this one.

I think everybody gets that. Doesn't mean we cannot hope Ricoh keeps the special parts of Pentax special. Doesn't mean Lauren has to like Ricoh paint on the back.

Every Pentax camera had the corporate name painted on the bottom: Pentax Corporation, Hoya Corporation, Ricoh Imaging. No one complained.

Yep. I don't hate Ricoh, not in the least.
I just think fair is fair.
A Ricoh GR is in my future and maybe something original they might come up with.



If Ricoh comes out with a GH4 killer, and puts their name on THAT, then I will gladly buy it, even maybe a few of them.
If it takes K mount glass even better!

Ricoh should give us a mirror-less mash-up of the GXR and K-01

So, if the K-01 is resurrected and has Ricoh all over it, fair game!

That is something I would buy tomorrow.

[kadajawi]

Product cycles... it takes a while. But I do think the K-3 has had some Ricoh influence. Who knows, maybe they ruined the K-3?


A GH4 killer from Ricoh? How on earth is that going to happen? The GH4 is taking all the expertise Panasonic has in professional video equipment (which they have been producing for quite some time), putting it into one mirrorless camera. Ricoh has no expertise whatsoever in that area. And Pentax cameras have become worse for video since Ricoh took over.


Also, I don't want a Pentax mirrorless to take the K mount. I want it to be flexible. That's a big advantage of the GH4 and other mFT cameras. However what they could do is a new mount with lenses that have built in AF, and an adapter with built in screw drive motor (but very silent, and adjustable in speed, optimized for video) to give the camera K mount, including all the contacts. Other manufacturers could produce F mount etc. adapters, again with built in screw drive motor maybe and pass through for the contacts (or if necessary a chip that translates the signal).

[Parallax]

Who knows, maybe they ruined the K-3?

No, they didn't ruin it. It can be salvaged with gaffer's tape.

[Uluru]

Not exactly. I don't agree Pentax was dead - see the tons of pages that have come before this thread-reawakening.
That might be the *new* narrative, but it doesn't fit with reality.

I know there was/is a core group of Pentaxians who have been the ones buying Pentax through the thick and thin. I am one of those, so my loyalty to Pentax has never been questioned. I am old school Pentax, and I have bought almost every single flagship dSLR since the *ist-D.

I have zero problem with Ricoh coming in and investing and making Pentax a better camera.

It's *how* Ricoh has been doing it. Ricoh on the back of a K5 Mark III - aka the K3 is pushing their contribution.
In 2014, there is not a SINGLE product that was not in prototype form under Pentax/Hoya under Ricoh. Ricoh has not given us anything that would not have come along had Hoya not stripped the company. If you want to talk failures, the Ricoh GXR was/is a TOTAL failure.

So Pentax was NEVER a failed company, just mismanaged. That is a BIG difference to thinking Pentax was a bunch of flunkies and Ricoh came and straightened them out. Maybe the bean counters, but not the core Pentax folks.
.

Ricoh indeed did not contribute with anything new Pentax did not have in the pipeline. But some lenses were stopped being released in the last 2 years, or, not all of them that Pentax had planned for release were released.

Asahiman was prophesying at least 3 or 4 lenses in the last 2 years that were never released in that period. Even now, with amazingly hot K-3 in hands, no new lens was released in the last 7 months, only the the TC.

(TC was on ice for years, but not all Pentax users are even contemplating TC as a part of their system. TC has a very limited use. A timely released couple of new lenses together with TC would be far more interesting option for many users buying into the K-3.)

To me it all looks like the Pentax product development is not an issue here. But something else is, which Pentax product development has no influence on.

[Pioneer]

I see the thread came back to life. Good to hear from you again LaurenOE.

[kadajawi]

No, they didn't ruin it. It can be salvaged with gaffer's tape.

I don't care about the Ricoh logo. But the video mode, while improved in certain areas (making it catch up with competitors) was completely ruined in other areas (turning what was better than what competitors had to offer into something that is worse). And those improvements seem to have cost them work and money (more components etc.), while the parts that ruin the camera has also cost them time and money. Just carrying over from the K-5 would have resulted in a much better camera. Basically the K-5 is IMHO a great run and gun video camera for handheld usage, while the K-3 can only be used in very controlled shoots, with the camera locked down ideally.


There is NO way I'd buy a K-3. If I had to buy a new Pentax, I'd buy a K-5. I'd even spend more on a K-5 than a K-3. I can list about 15 cameras I'd rather have than the K-3, and maybe 2 or 3 that I'd rather have than the K-5.


To be fair the trend of f***ing up the video function started with the K-01 and K-30. Not sure who is to blame.