[pakinjapan]

K-1 is a amazing camera but It seems that Ricoh/Pentax does not making profits from Photography in the world that much. If this gonna happen for a long period of time, they might gonna sell Pentax or else.

According to Ricoh's 2017 financial report under "Secment Information" and "Consolidated Sales by Product Line "
this is the sum up of what they said. Link to the report is here.

Sales in the Imaging & Solutions segment decreased by 9.2%
Sales in the Industrial Products segment decreased by 0.5%
Sales in the Other segment (I think PENTAX is in this segment b/c it clearly mention camera business here) "increased" by 2.7% ... but was offset by the impact of the strengthening of the yen, impairment of property, plant and equipment and intangible assets.

it looks like sale in their main products are the one that loose the most while camera business is the one make money but it doesn't make much profit at the end because they have to upgrade their plants and equipment etc before end of 2017 financial report came out. I guess after the upgrade they should be find for a while and we will see a better earn from camera business next financial year.

As many said, and the company Financial report confirm, the camera business is not the one to be concerned (that much).
Ricoh main business is the one need a bigger shake up.

---

Last edited by pakinjapan; 06-21-2017 at 06:07 PM.

[BrianR]

It's a great investment. You could either buy a K-1 or go see ~270 movies (Canadian prices). That's about 500 hours of drivel you don't have to watch if you get the K-1 instead - this is a terrific investment in your mental sanity. Makes perfect sense to me, I shall run this logic past my financial adviser.

According to Ricoh's 2017 financial report under "Secment Information" and "Consolidated Sales by Product Line "
this is the sum up of what they said. Link to the report is here.

Sales in the Imaging & Solutions segment decreased by 9.2%
Sales in the Industrial Products segment decreased by 0.5%
Sales in the Other segment (I think PENTAX is in this segment b/c it clearly mention camera business here) "increased" by 2.7% ... but was offset by the impact of the strengthening of the yen, impairment of property, plant and equipment and intangible assets.

it looks like sale in their main products are the one that loose the most while camera business is the one make money but it doesn't make much profit at the end because they have to upgrade their plants and equipment etc before end of 2017 financial report came out. I guess after the upgrade they should be find for a while and we will see a better earn from camera business next financial year.

As many said, and the company Financial report confirm, the camera business is not the one to be concerned (that much).
Ricoh main business is the one need a bigger shake up.

But it is a fact that Pentax had been sold to other companies for at least twice. Compare to other brands, it is concerning.

[seagas]

I'm bullish on Pentax, since April, I've bought a new body and six new lenses, all Pentax.

[MarkJerling]

But it is a fact that Pentax had been sold to other companies for at least twice. Compare to other brands, it is concerning.

Why? Because Ricoh was prepared to pay $124million for Pentax?

[Uluru]

Time to close this thread. The OP received good answers in the beginning, and now everything will become an endless soap opera.
Moderator, pull the plug. Discussion closed.

[MarkJerling]

Thanks Uluru. For now I'll leave it open.

[E-man]

Even if Pentax closes up shop, it doesn't mean my Pentax cameras will instantly stop working. I can still use them as long as they continue to work, then make a decision of where to go from there. I already went through this with my Minolta gear and when I finally pulled the trigger on a DSLR system, the best solution for my needs was--and still is--Pentax.

[surfar]

Its no so bad when a company stops selling cameras, theres other camera companies..Takumars and K mount lenses don't stop working.

I'm invested in Samsung, they continued firmware updates,after NO official closing down of the camera division.

It'll be interesting to see the outcome????....as well as "those" primes!

[loveisageless]

Ok, my question for the OP is how many times in your photographic life experience have you switched camera brands in the past or just upgraded your lenses and/or camera bodies? There is no return on investment in photographic equipment. It goes something like this "Do I like it? Can I afford it right now? If I find I don't like it after I acquire it am I ok with not getting all of my money back out of it? If I love it and they no longer make it, will it change what I love about using it?" My suggestion would be to go ahead and buy the K-1 and any lenses you are interested in, but begin saving for a future camera and lenses. If they turn out to still be Pentax, wonderful. If not, you will get some money out of the Pentax gear to add to your savings and can buy another brand of camera. With any camera brand, I think the bigger concern/risk is that the supply chain of parts dries up because a third party supplier goes out of business and there is a gap in getting another supplier for the part(s). I also have to say that I am really tired of all the whining about the lack of lenses. For goodness sakes. How many times have you had the perfect lens set up and still missed "the shot" because you did not bring the right lens with you?

[Uluru]

If the thread is still open, then my two eucalyptus leaves; if the OP is concerned about investing in a system, no matter which one, let him buy a fixed lens camera.
Preferably with a zoom lens. Say, Panasonic LX100 is nice, Sony RX100 version whatever, then megazooms like Panasonic DMC FZ2500, or Sony RX10 variants, etc.
They are all really good, very capable cameras, many are more advanced than DSLRs, and some company out there will always produce such all-in-one solutions.

Why? Because Ricoh was prepared to pay $124million for Pentax?

First was Hoya and then Ricoh. The problem is that Hoya didnt sell the entire Pentax. They kept several Pentax technology such as optics. That's why Pentax is having trouble with making new lenses recently.

[BigMackCam]

If the thread is still open, then my two eucalyptus leaves; if the OP is concerned about investing in a system, no matter which one, let him buy a fixed lens camera.
Preferably with a zoom lens. Say, Panasonic LX100 is nice, Sony RX100 version whatever, then megazooms like Panasonic DMC FZ2500, or Sony RX10 variants, etc.
They are all really good, very capable cameras, many are more advanced than DSLRs, and some company out there will always produce such all-in-one solutions.

Fixed-lens cameras might be a viable solution for some people, but most have one or more compromises that many photographers would find too limiting:

- insufficient creative depth-of-field control due to slower variable-aperture lenses and/or smaller sensor sizes
- questionable optical performance at certain focal lengths due to the large focal-length ranges offered
- where the lens has a restricted focal length range to allow for better optical performance and faster apertures, limited applications where the focal lengths just don't work

Few, if any, of the "one size fits all" fixed-lens cameras provide the creative control and optical performance of an interchangeable-lens DSLR or mirrorless system with good lenses. That doesn't make them any less impressive for what they are, but one doesn't replace the other.

[Kunzite]

But it is a fact that Pentax had been sold to other companies for at least twice. Compare to other brands, it is concerning.

A fact, you say? I call it a fake. Still starting with 'f', but...

First: Hoya needed a hostile takeover - only successful with strong inside support, the ex-CEO and a major shareholder - to get Pentax. So, nobody sold Pentax to them (unless by "selling" you mean betrayal, but you don't); Pentax Corporation was not for sale, nor in need of any kind of "saving".
Second: Hoya, not being interested in the camera business, sold Pentax Imaging Systems to Ricoh.

So your "at least twice" is actually once.

A fact, you say? I call it a fake. Still starting with 'f', but...

First: Hoya needed a hostile takeover - only successful with strong inside support, the ex-CEO and a major shareholder - to get Pentax. So, nobody sold Pentax to them (unless by "selling" you mean betrayal, but you don't); Pentax Corporation was not for sale, nor in need of any kind of "saving".
Second: Hoya, not being interested in the camera business, sold Pentax Imaging Systems to Ricoh.

So your "at least twice" is actually once.

But still it is a fact that Hoya holds Pentax till Ricoh bought Pentax completely. Base on the Pentax history, they've been merged to Hoya. Basically Pentax was suffering budget issues so that's why they were looking for a company to merge in. Yes they were no interested in the camera and that's why they messed up with Pentax so much such as kicking out several optical technicians, several lenses had been canceled, and SMC had been used by Hoya.

& - ???? I had to translate it but they clearly show that Pentax had been sold to Hoya and then Ricoh.