Full Frame a Mistake?

Kunzite · 08-07-2016, 08:30 AM

Originally posted by Wheatfield

If Pentax hadn't sold to Hoya, the camera line would have stopped at the K10D.

I strongly disagree with that. Pentax Corporation didn't prepare cameras and an entire line of lenses just to give up. And as I said, Pentax Corporation haven't sold to Hoya.
Hoya was no savior.

Wheatfield · 08-07-2016, 08:44 AM

Originally posted by Kunzite

I strongly disagree with that. Pentax Corporation didn't prepare cameras and an entire line of lenses just to give up. And as I said, Pentax Corporation haven't sold to Hoya.
Hoya was no savior.

Pentax was a bankrupt company at the time of the Hoya takeover, and needed a white knight to bail it out. Hoya was that white knight, however reluctant they might have been.

Kunzite · 08-07-2016, 10:41 AM

Everything you said is wrong:
- Pentax Corporation was profitable at that time.
- Pentax Corporation only needed a white knight to help them resist the hostile takeover attempt (which, I will remind you, was done with the support of their major shareholder, SPARX).
- Hoya (and SPARX) was the cause of their trouble, not the solution. To call the company performing a hostile takeover on another a "white knight" is terribly misinformed.
- Hoya was definitely not reluctant to take over Pentax Corporation. They proposed a merger, then, when that was refused by the Pentax board, they pursued a hostile takeover.

Please don't try to rewrite history. The North remembers.

virusn3t · 08-07-2016, 10:48 AM

On petapixel theres a thread "manufacturers biggest mistakes" talking about what Tony says, general consensum is he is wrong.

Wheatfield · 08-07-2016, 11:23 AM

Originally posted by Kunzite

Everything you said is wrong:
- Pentax Corporation was profitable at that time.
- Pentax Corporation only needed a white knight to help them resist the hostile takeover attempt (which, I will remind you, was done with the support of their major shareholder, SPARX).
- Hoya (and SPARX) was the cause of their trouble, not the solution. To call the company performing a hostile takeover on another a "white knight" is terribly misinformed.
- Hoya was definitely not reluctant to take over Pentax Corporation. They proposed a merger, then, when that was refused by the Pentax board, they pursued a hostile takeover.

Please don't try to rewrite history. The North remembers.

Sure, whatever you say. SPARX had an obligation to their shareholders. Pentax profits were numbering in the millions per year, all of which was coming out of the medical imaging division, camera sales were in free fall, with the camera division bleeding money like a stuck pig.
Hoya wanted the medical imaging division, they DID NOT WANT the camera division, but had to take it to get what they wanted.
Pentax refused the "merger" because it looked like it was going to be 100% on Hoya's terms, something the Pentax board was reluctant to enter into.
If Pentax had been a healthy company, none of this would have come to pass, but they weren't. The MZ-D had tanked before it hit production, with all the R&D out the window, they weren't making enough money to invest in new R&D. Pentax was still plugging away with a 6mp sensor while the competition had moved to 8, 10 and 12 MP cameras.
If Hoya had taken just the medical imaging division as they had wanted to, the camera division would have been shuttered.

Kunzite · 08-07-2016, 11:39 AM

I said, "Pentax Corporation was profitable" - not "Pentax Corporation was in excellent shape". The thing is, they weren't bankrupt (as you claim).
I don't care what SPARX wanted, and it's irrelevant - they're just another money-greedy hedge fund.
I don't care what Hoya wanted; they were planning to take over Pentax (not being reluctant as you claim). They were no white knight.
At that point, Pentax Corporation already launched the 10MP K10D and started introducing new lenses. They were not "still plugging away with a 6mp sensor" as you claim.

The North remembers!

**Rondec** · 08-07-2016, 12:35 PM - **1 Like**

If Pentax hadn't released the K-1, I doubt they would have released a K3 II replacement that would have been a D500 clone, which I guess is what Tony Northup thinks. Brilliant tracking auto focus is not (and hasn't been) Pentax's strong point and a top end sports camera would have sold fewer copies for Pentax than the K-1 will.

The K-1 certainly doesn't have a full lens line up yet and isn't a perfect camera, but for the price, it is hard to beat. The lenses that are added to the line up that cover full frame can easily be used on APS-C cameras as well and fill in the lineup nicely from that respect. Having the K-1 also takes away the line of reasoning: "You shouldn't buy Pentax, if you want to move up to full frame, they don't have one."

normhead · 08-07-2016, 02:12 PM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by Quartermaster James

Easily enough done. Just sell an image you took with your APS-C Pentax and, viola! It's pro gear!

The other side of that statement is the fact that our biggest selling image was taken with 10 MP Opiio W80 on a forest hike before Tess got into DSLRs. And that is the real secret the camera companies try to hide. There is no pro, gear, there are only pro photographers. Great high end gear in the hands of people who don't shoot good enough to sell, is still amateur gear. Our Optio W80, my K20D, my K-5s and my K-3 are all pro gear, as in, we've sold images taken with them. MY guess is, there are a lot of 5D MKIIs, D810s, and other high end gear that are amateur gear, because the owners have never brought an image to the point where it could be sold. Only the camera companies and review sites are hung up on defining cameras as "pro gear" as a definition of the type of camera it is.

Both of my D800 shooting buddies are accomplished and wealthy (compared to myself) amateurs. So their D800s are amateur gear, regardless of what some working pro's D800 might be. If we passed a rule that said to be called pro camera gear, 50% of said cameras users had to be making money from their cameras, there would be very few cameras that could be labelled "pro".

Right up to an 9k 1DX and the Nikon 4Dx, a high percentage of owners are wealthy amateurs who's income comes from another source besides photography., among the owners I know and meet.

This is completely a truth in advertising issue.

IN the real world a camera isn't amateur or pro. Only people are amateurs or pros.

**monochrome** · 08-07-2016, 03:36 PM - **3 Likes**

SPARX GROUP is an Asia-based hedge fund and activist investor. Such funds often purchase blocks of shares in asset-rich companies when sales and earnings are off-cycle and attempt to force management to act contrary to the long-term interests of the company in order to achieve short term share price appreciation for themselves.

Pentax Corporation owned significant underutilized real estate and manufacturing assets in Japan - really prime land and facilities - and a large patent portfolio in medical devices, eyeglasses, optical coating process engineering and others..Return on equity in thes areas can be well above 20%. Return on equity in consumer photographic equipment is around 8% in the best times.

Without writing a Master's Thesis in Finance, in order to monetize it's investment SPARX wanted to bring the high-return operations to another company, sell as much real estate as possible and dispose of low-return assets efficiently. Eyeglasses were sold by Pentax to Seiko as a defensive maneuver (my molded tri-focal eyeglass lenses are actually Seiko / Pentax), but the Board did not approve selling medical devices to Hoya during the post dot com recession at low market multiples.

In response, SPARX and Hoya obtained private financing, made a hostile tender offer for all Pentax shares and convinced institutions to sell. Hoya took (generally) high return divisions and Factory in a Park, SPARX took real estate, and Hoya/SPARX kept cameras - for one reason and one reason only; the inventory of lenses built up as the global economy had slowed.

The best way to liquidate that asset was to keep the brand just alive enough to keep the lenses saleable at retail, but to liquidate them quickly. 'Just alive enough' included finishing products already in development and extending products by reusing existing engineering (such as 645D, which facilitated selling 645 lenses)., At the same time they dumped DSLR lenses in the USA at stupid low prices, tarnishing the brand as cheap, after closing every in-house operation and outsourcing them. In essence the USA became an Internet distribution operation through B&H, Adorama and Amazon, with virtually no physical assets and only 50 employees. I have heard the company Vice President Marketing was the commissioned salesman for B&H and Adorama. There were only two other sales reps. The company President was supposedly bonuses on inventory draw. To save money Pentax infrastructure and dealer relationships were dismantled -so completely that they might never be rebuilt.

It is said Ricoh paid only $140,000,000 for the brand, some plants overseas and a few specific patents. What isn't known is the assumed soft cost - the known investment it would require to make Pentax a viable brand again.

I read an investment banking report published by the Japanese division of my former employer that stated to compete with Canon and Nikon on their terms would require an immediate investment of $1,400,000,000, a number Ricoh could not afford since they were already committed to a $1,200,000,000 investment in a China factory and entering the MFP market.

Thus Ricoh has chosen the insurgent business model we see today.

Some of you might clarify or reorder these points. I won't spend Sunday afternoon researching and verifying dates and sequence, but this is, I believ generally correct. I welcome corrections and amplifications.

**eyeball** · 08-07-2016, 08:35 PM

Monochrome, thanks very much for the info. I love fact-based stories; always good to know the backstory, most especially this one. Did I mention I HATE hedge finds?

Regarding TN: I know! Let's start a thread on Tony Northrup's greatest mistakes!

Seriously, I think the guy & gal are well-intentioned, and for the most part well-informed, but they do come across like they think they know more than they do. That's a personality pecadillo to take into account alright, but I think they're honest, and others out there are worse. Them what's without guilt....Tony's videos can be very helpful, and I'd take the positive into account when judging the negative.

**RobA_Oz** · 08-07-2016, 09:26 PM

Originally posted by eyeball

Monochrome, thanks very much for the info. I love fact-based stories; always good to know the backstory, most especially this one. Did I mention I HATE hedge finds?

Yes, indeed, it's good to have that part of the story filled in, for those of us who haven't known it before.

The whole operation sounds like what we call "asset stripping". In the 1970s and 80s, some people here got very wealthy doing just that, in the process putting some long-established firms out of business, or at least out of the main game, from which some regions are only just recovering. They would call it "right-sizing" or "making efficient use of capital resources", but I call it a sociopath's excuse for having no commitment to an industry, region or person, other than themselves.

pinholecam · 08-07-2016, 09:49 PM

Not enough lenses.... Yawn.... ...

More like do you have enough $$

Pentax launched a FF camera and a range of high end zooms spanning 15mm to 450mm and is still "not enough lenses"?
Not to mention the limiteds and some existing DFA lenses already available.

Yeah, maybe there isn't that 1000mm f1.0 for Bill Gates and 50 cents 50mm f2 for Mr Pauper,
And maybe a tiny tiney spy lens for Mr Upskirt Otaku.
So...
Yeah...
Not enough lenses

**RobA_Oz** · 08-07-2016, 11:58 PM

You might recall there were more than a few people here saying, before its release, that there couldn't be a Pentax FF body in the works because there weren't enough lenses. Consistency's a virtue of sorts.

Plus ça change...

surfar · 08-08-2016, 01:00 AM

Originally posted by pinholecam

"not enough lenses

I haven't bought any, I don't rate my lenses as great, but I do rate them as good enough for me to enjoy FF photography AND crop photography!

beholder3 · 08-08-2016, 01:57 AM

Originally posted by monochrome

It is said Ricoh paid only $140,000,000 for the brand, some plants overseas and a few specific patents.

The cost was reported as 85 mio. EUR, I think even at that time of very weak USD that would barely have been $120 mio.

That is what you pay for a rather small local, family owned, national company usually. I'd call it an symbolic price.

08-07-2016, 10:41 AM	#63
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	Everything you said is wrong: - Pentax Corporation was profitable at that time. - Pentax Corporation only needed a white knight to help them resist the hostile takeover attempt (which, I will remind you, was done with the support of their major shareholder, SPARX). - Hoya (and SPARX) was the cause of their trouble, not the solution. To call the company performing a hostile takeover on another a "white knight" is terribly misinformed. - Hoya was definitely not reluctant to take over Pentax Corporation. They proposed a merger, then, when that was refused by the Pentax board, they pursued a hostile takeover. Please don't try to rewrite history. The North remembers. Last edited by Kunzite; 08-07-2016 at 10:49 AM.

08-07-2016, 03:36 PM - 3 Likes	#69
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	SPARX GROUP is an Asia-based hedge fund and activist investor. Such funds often purchase blocks of shares in asset-rich companies when sales and earnings are off-cycle and attempt to force management to act contrary to the long-term interests of the company in order to achieve short term share price appreciation for themselves. Pentax Corporation owned significant underutilized real estate and manufacturing assets in Japan - really prime land and facilities - and a large patent portfolio in medical devices, eyeglasses, optical coating process engineering and others..Return on equity in thes areas can be well above 20%. Return on equity in consumer photographic equipment is around 8% in the best times. Without writing a Master's Thesis in Finance, in order to monetize it's investment SPARX wanted to bring the high-return operations to another company, sell as much real estate as possible and dispose of low-return assets efficiently. Eyeglasses were sold by Pentax to Seiko as a defensive maneuver (my molded tri-focal eyeglass lenses are actually Seiko / Pentax), but the Board did not approve selling medical devices to Hoya during the post dot com recession at low market multiples. In response, SPARX and Hoya obtained private financing, made a hostile tender offer for all Pentax shares and convinced institutions to sell. Hoya took (generally) high return divisions and Factory in a Park, SPARX took real estate, and Hoya/SPARX kept cameras - for one reason and one reason only; the inventory of lenses built up as the global economy had slowed. The best way to liquidate that asset was to keep the brand just alive enough to keep the lenses saleable at retail, but to liquidate them quickly. 'Just alive enough' included finishing products already in development and extending products by reusing existing engineering (such as 645D, which facilitated selling 645 lenses)., At the same time they dumped DSLR lenses in the USA at stupid low prices, tarnishing the brand as cheap, after closing every in-house operation and outsourcing them. In essence the USA became an Internet distribution operation through B&H, Adorama and Amazon, with virtually no physical assets and only 50 employees. I have heard the company Vice President Marketing was the commissioned salesman for B&H and Adorama. There were only two other sales reps. The company President was supposedly bonuses on inventory draw. To save money Pentax infrastructure and dealer relationships were dismantled -so completely that they might never be rebuilt. It is said Ricoh paid only $140,000,000 for the brand, some plants overseas and a few specific patents. What isn't known is the assumed soft cost - the known investment it would require to make Pentax a viable brand again. I read an investment banking report published by the Japanese division of my former employer that stated to compete with Canon and Nikon on their terms would require an immediate investment of $1,400,000,000, a number Ricoh could not afford since they were already committed to a $1,200,000,000 investment in a China factory and entering the MFP market. Thus Ricoh has chosen the insurgent business model we see today. Some of you might clarify or reorder these points. I won't spend Sunday afternoon researching and verifying dates and sequence, but this is, I believ generally correct. I welcome corrections and amplifications. Last edited by monochrome; 08-07-2016 at 03:42 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
K-1 So What Is Full Frame Going To Provide Over A Crop Frame DSLR	MRCDH	Pentax Full Frame	312	03-22-2016 01:21 PM
A bit of full-frame humour.	pathdoc	Pentax Full Frame	5	09-01-2015 03:39 AM
A recent full frame experience	stillshot2	Pentax Full Frame	110	08-10-2015 12:19 PM
Is a K-3 with a full frame sensor enough for you?	jake14mw	Pentax Full Frame	58	03-28-2015 11:39 AM
Pentax full-frame? A huge mistake...	jon404	Pentax Full Frame	137	11-04-2013 08:25 PM

08-07-2016, 08:30 AM	#61
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	Originally posted by Wheatfield If Pentax hadn't sold to Hoya, the camera line would have stopped at the K10D. I strongly disagree with that. Pentax Corporation didn't prepare cameras and an entire line of lenses just to give up. And as I said, Pentax Corporation haven't sold to Hoya. Hoya was no savior.

08-07-2016, 08:44 AM	#62
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,981	Originally posted by Kunzite I strongly disagree with that. Pentax Corporation didn't prepare cameras and an entire line of lenses just to give up. And as I said, Pentax Corporation haven't sold to Hoya. Hoya was no savior. Pentax was a bankrupt company at the time of the Hoya takeover, and needed a white knight to bail it out. Hoya was that white knight, however reluctant they might have been.

08-07-2016, 10:48 AM	#64
virusn3t Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2014 Posts: 676	On petapixel theres a thread "manufacturers biggest mistakes" talking about what Tony says, general consensum is he is wrong.

08-07-2016, 11:23 AM	#65
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,981	Originally posted by Kunzite Everything you said is wrong: - Pentax Corporation was profitable at that time. - Pentax Corporation only needed a white knight to help them resist the hostile takeover attempt (which, I will remind you, was done with the support of their major shareholder, SPARX). - Hoya (and SPARX) was the cause of their trouble, not the solution. To call the company performing a hostile takeover on another a "white knight" is terribly misinformed. - Hoya was definitely not reluctant to take over Pentax Corporation. They proposed a merger, then, when that was refused by the Pentax board, they pursued a hostile takeover. Please don't try to rewrite history. The North remembers. Sure, whatever you say. SPARX had an obligation to their shareholders. Pentax profits were numbering in the millions per year, all of which was coming out of the medical imaging division, camera sales were in free fall, with the camera division bleeding money like a stuck pig. Hoya wanted the medical imaging division, they DID NOT WANT the camera division, but had to take it to get what they wanted. Pentax refused the "merger" because it looked like it was going to be 100% on Hoya's terms, something the Pentax board was reluctant to enter into. If Pentax had been a healthy company, none of this would have come to pass, but they weren't. The MZ-D had tanked before it hit production, with all the R&D out the window, they weren't making enough money to invest in new R&D. Pentax was still plugging away with a 6mp sensor while the competition had moved to 8, 10 and 12 MP cameras. If Hoya had taken just the medical imaging division as they had wanted to, the camera division would have been shuttered.

08-07-2016, 11:39 AM	#66
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	I said, "Pentax Corporation was profitable" - not "Pentax Corporation was in excellent shape". The thing is, they weren't bankrupt (as you claim). I don't care what SPARX wanted, and it's irrelevant - they're just another money-greedy hedge fund. I don't care what Hoya wanted; they were planning to take over Pentax (not being reluctant as you claim). They were no white knight. At that point, Pentax Corporation already launched the 10MP K10D and started introducing new lenses. They were not "still plugging away with a 6mp sensor" as you claim. The North remembers!

08-07-2016, 12:35 PM - 1 Like	#67
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,653	If Pentax hadn't released the K-1, I doubt they would have released a K3 II replacement that would have been a D500 clone, which I guess is what Tony Northup thinks. Brilliant tracking auto focus is not (and hasn't been) Pentax's strong point and a top end sports camera would have sold fewer copies for Pentax than the K-1 will. The K-1 certainly doesn't have a full lens line up yet and isn't a perfect camera, but for the price, it is hard to beat. The lenses that are added to the line up that cover full frame can easily be used on APS-C cameras as well and fill in the lineup nicely from that respect. Having the K-1 also takes away the line of reasoning: "You shouldn't buy Pentax, if you want to move up to full frame, they don't have one."

08-07-2016, 02:12 PM - 2 Likes	#68
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by Quartermaster James Easily enough done. Just sell an image you took with your APS-C Pentax and, viola! It's pro gear! The other side of that statement is the fact that our biggest selling image was taken with 10 MP Opiio W80 on a forest hike before Tess got into DSLRs. And that is the real secret the camera companies try to hide. There is no pro, gear, there are only pro photographers. Great high end gear in the hands of people who don't shoot good enough to sell, is still amateur gear. Our Optio W80, my K20D, my K-5s and my K-3 are all pro gear, as in, we've sold images taken with them. MY guess is, there are a lot of 5D MKIIs, D810s, and other high end gear that are amateur gear, because the owners have never brought an image to the point where it could be sold. Only the camera companies and review sites are hung up on defining cameras as "pro gear" as a definition of the type of camera it is. Both of my D800 shooting buddies are accomplished and wealthy (compared to myself) amateurs. So their D800s are amateur gear, regardless of what some working pro's D800 might be. If we passed a rule that said to be called pro camera gear, 50% of said cameras users had to be making money from their cameras, there would be very few cameras that could be labelled "pro". Right up to an 9k 1DX and the Nikon 4Dx, a high percentage of owners are wealthy amateurs who's income comes from another source besides photography., among the owners I know and meet. This is completely a truth in advertising issue. IN the real world a camera isn't amateur or pro. Only people are amateurs or pros.

08-07-2016, 08:35 PM	#70
eyeball Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2015 Posts: 50	Monochrome, thanks very much for the info. I love fact-based stories; always good to know the backstory, most especially this one. Did I mention I HATE hedge finds? Regarding TN: I know! Let's start a thread on Tony Northrup's greatest mistakes! Seriously, I think the guy & gal are well-intentioned, and for the most part well-informed, but they do come across like they think they know more than they do. That's a personality pecadillo to take into account alright, but I think they're honest, and others out there are worse. Them what's without guilt....Tony's videos can be very helpful, and I'd take the positive into account when judging the negative.

08-07-2016, 09:26 PM	#71
RobA_Oz Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Tasmania, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,197	Originally posted by eyeball Monochrome, thanks very much for the info. I love fact-based stories; always good to know the backstory, most especially this one. Did I mention I HATE hedge finds? Yes, indeed, it's good to have that part of the story filled in, for those of us who haven't known it before. The whole operation sounds like what we call "asset stripping". In the 1970s and 80s, some people here got very wealthy doing just that, in the process putting some long-established firms out of business, or at least out of the main game, from which some regions are only just recovering. They would call it "right-sizing" or "making efficient use of capital resources", but I call it a sociopath's excuse for having no commitment to an industry, region or person, other than themselves.

08-07-2016, 09:49 PM	#72
pinholecam Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: North Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,706	Not enough lenses.... Yawn.... ... More like do you have enough $$ Pentax launched a FF camera and a range of high end zooms spanning 15mm to 450mm and is still "not enough lenses"? Not to mention the limiteds and some existing DFA lenses already available. Yeah, maybe there isn't that 1000mm f1.0 for Bill Gates and 50 cents 50mm f2 for Mr Pauper, And maybe a tiny tiney spy lens for Mr Upskirt Otaku. So... Yeah... Not enough lenses

08-07-2016, 11:58 PM	#73
RobA_Oz Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Tasmania, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,197	You might recall there were more than a few people here saying, before its release, that there couldn't be a Pentax FF body in the works because there weren't enough lenses. Consistency's a virtue of sorts. Plus ça change...

08-08-2016, 01:00 AM	#74
surfar Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2015 Location: mid nth coast,nsw Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,141	Originally posted by pinholecam "not enough lenses I haven't bought any, I don't rate my lenses as great, but I do rate them as good enough for me to enjoy FF photography AND crop photography!

08-08-2016, 01:57 AM	#75
beholder3 Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 3,112	Originally posted by monochrome It is said Ricoh paid only $140,000,000 for the brand, some plants overseas and a few specific patents. The cost was reported as 85 mio. EUR, I think even at that time of very weak USD that would barely have been $120 mio. That is what you pay for a rather small local, family owned, national company usually. I'd call it an symbolic price.