Potential Pentax Buyers, Your Thoughts?

<p><B>Consider this an open letter to Hoya Corporation to do the right thing and consider exiting the camera market:</B></p>

<p>Back in 2007, I was against Pentax being bought by an electronics company because, well, Pentax is a camera company that understands cameras. My take on consumer electronics companies is they make gadgets, not cameras. Gadgets are cool, don't get me wrong, but cameras are not gadgets. If anything I'm hella impressed with Samsung for their partnership with Pentax. It almost seems like they actually moved past the gadget stage and are trying to produce photographic tools, I'm assuming working with Pentax had some role in that.</p>

<p>However, since the Hoya buyout Pentax has really had more negative issues than positive. Sure it's definitely filled out and matured it's DA lens lineup, but it's also done some very questionable things that very few of us haven't noticed as there as nearly weekly complaints on these forums and elsewhere. Beyond that it's cut a few seemingly key elements out of it's road map for unknown reasons. Those that come to mind offhand are the much needed and much wanted 1.4X TC, followed by an almost universal want/need for a fast normal that was road mapped as a 30mm f/1.4 DA*. Does a 1.4X TC really cost that much in R&D and production? Come on, it's a few elements of glass on an extension tube, killing it was the most poor cost cutting measure I have ever seen. That, and that alone, should give you serious questions about who is making the decisions at Hoya for Pentax. If nothing else just re-release the 1.7X magic converter and call it a day, or just rebrand the Tamron with the PZ contacts. Neither would cost much beyond production.</p>

<p>What actually has me posting this is I just noticed today that Sony, you know the company that produces many of our favorite Pentax sensors, is reducing it's own role in sensor production by out sourcing to Fujitsu. This comes on the heals of Sony discontinuing it's full frame line (something that Pentaxians should take note as a red flag for Pentax ever releasing a FF camera and lens system). Sony is doing this because despite being one of the worlds leading consumer electronics manufacturers (i'm pretty sure Samsung is the biggest now), it has lost market share in almost every one of it's divisions, with some being money losers end to end (the camera and gaming divisions). Basically even Sony is feeling the pinch of intense global competition in a world of weak consumer confidence due to the struggling US and global economies.</p>

<p>Any way, the question at hand is, assuming you agree that Hoya is completely incapable, and potentially uninterested in Pentax camera division (these were the rumors at the original take over, that Hoya really just wanted the medical division), and this would seem to be justified by Pentax boards attempts to fight the buyout to the very end, who do you think realistically could/would/should buy Pentax and restore the consumer confidence that most of us had in this once excellent small market camera company.</p>

<p>Fujitsu, Casio, Epson, JVC, LG, Sigma all come to mind.</p>

<ul>

 

<li><p>Sigma, a long shot but why not, based on the fact they barely are able to produce a camera every 5 years, and have almost no market share. Imagine having Sigmas entire lens lineup in K mount, plus the Limiteds and DA* lenses. If nothing else it would be a great way to steal market share from Tokina.</p></li>

<li><p>Seiko Epson, they've sort of been in the camera market (Sekonic light meters might ring a bell) and produce just about every kind of product imaginable from TVs to printers to laptops and even the well reviewed R-D1 digital range finder...ironically, Epson did what I have been begging Pentax to do. Actually support legacy cameras using current hardware with continued firmware upgrades. Such as giving the K10D additional options found in the K200D and K20D. Epson did this very thing with the R-D1s which was just a firmware upgrade, only it released the firmware to the R-D1 users. Can't say enough of how much I love my Seiko watches either! Seriously, as I think about this, Seiko Epson would be my choice. Imagine Seiko like build and finish on a Pentax K-3? With Seiko's precision build heritage the Limiteds would fit right in, and oh, those SDM motors would probably be the sort of thing you find in a museum of micro motor design.</p></li>

<li><p>Casio has been producing great point and shoots for many years. I've never owned one, but they've made it to the top 2-3 in several point and shoot purchase list. They've even stepped into the super zoom market with some really well reviewed cameras. Honestly, their digital compacts are significantly better than most of Pentax offering, maybe they need a DSLR line for users to step up to after they outgrow compacts.</p></li>

<li><p>Fujitsu, they are the Japanese HP, masters of industrial design, jack of all trades. Not sure I see them selling DSLRs though.</p></li>

<li><p>LG...Samsung Jr in many respects, much different in others. Besides if it's national counterpart is in the camera market, shouldn't they be?</p></li>

<li><p>JVC, obviously one of the bigger names in video to this day. Since 2008 it's no longer part of Matsushita (Panasonic). Probably makes the most sense after Casio and Epson. And with the way video is moving into the DSLR world, JVC could actually use a premade DSLR company to slide right in.</p></li>

<li><p>HP, unlikely as I don't even think they make digital compacts anymore. Still I was gifted, back in the early 2000s, an HP superzoom with a fast Fuji lens and it was an excellent camera IQ wise for it's era. HP drops billions on purchases like you drop $6 on a Starbucks. Already this year they are approaching $4B in aquisitions. $250 million (if that much) for the DSLR division of Pentax wouldn't even show up on their balance sheet. If I include Fujitsu, I'd be remiss to not include HP.</p></li>

<li><p>Kodak, this is the most ridiculous one I came up with. Kodak is a sinking ship when it comes to consumer imaging. Not sure they want back in the fight as they are well enough diversified to move on (medical imaging and records management for instance) but honestly to think of a day when Kodak is out of the camera market is a sad day. Then again, Kodak has done everything it can to distance itself from consumer cameras. It outsourced it's compact manufacturing, cut it's pretty decent (full frame) DSLR line, and isn't even smart enough to ask for Kodak branding on it's Kodak sensored 3rd party cameras (Leica, Pentax, Hassy, etc). You know, like "Intel Inside", "Kodak Inside". Consider them my nostalgic pick, although in reality I think they'd do worse than Hoya at managing Pentax. Second thought, forget I mentioned Kodak, pouring gasoline on a fire is never a good idea. So long Kodak!</p></li>

</ul>

<p><em>Regardless, to me the writing is on the wall. Hoya needs to spin off or sell Pentax before it kills the companies reputation for good. Right now the gear is still good, the value still good, but I fear a few more product cycles under Hoya and Pentax won't be worth enough to sell off. Lets face it, we've seen over the past year quite a few passionate and loyal Pentaxians say they've had enough, when you are a small market share company that doesn't market and you start losing your core it isn't a good sign. </em></p>

<p>Your thoughts?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Proof to back up my rhetoric from just a few months ago, or more than 2 full years after Hoya aqcuired Pentax...if this isn't proof Hoya doesn't want Pentax I don't know what would be:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>May 27, 2010 (Bloomberg) -- Hoya Corp. needs a more diverse, transparent board to help prevent “failures” such as the $1 billion purchase of Pentax Corp., said Yutaka Yamanaka, a grandson of the Japanese lens maker’s founder.<br>

Yamanaka, 33, on May 11 submitted a 15-point shareholder proposal which includes calls for disclosure of individual directors’ pay and limits on concurrent board membership. Hoya’s 2007 acquisition of camera and endoscope maker Pentax to expand its medical care business was“overpriced,” he said.<br>

“The proposal is aimed at establishing at Hoya a system capable of advancing new businesses such as ophthalmology medicines and research and development,” Yamanaka, whose grandfather Shigeru Yamanaka co-founded Japan’s largest maker of optical glass in 1941, said in an interview yesterday.</p>

<p>“My goal is not to cause a confrontation at the shareholder meeting, but rather to find way to increase the company’s value,” Yamanaka said.<br>

Net income rose 51 percent to 37.9 billion yen ($421 million) in the 12 months ended March 31, while sales declined 9 percent to 413.5 billion yen, Tokyo-based Hoya reported earlier this month. Operating profit, or revenue minus the cost of goods sold and administrative expenses, rose 8.9 percent to 64.3 billion yen, <em>after Pentax operations turned profitable, the company said.</em><br>

<em>The company’s initial offer for Pentax in 2006 was about 10 percent higher than its market value at the time.</em><br>

Hoya’s health-care division, which makes contact lenses and surgically implanted lenses, accounted for about 13 percent of the company’s overall sales last fiscal year, and had a 23 percent operating income margin.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Notice he never mentions digital imaging? The fact it seems true that they ONLY wanted the medical devices division of Pentax. Also, how did they make Pentax profitable? Was it good or bad for the consumer? Most think it was bad!</p>

<p>One exciting aspect of Sigma is their ownership of the Foveon sensor. I think their SD camera line would attract way more market if they had a more mainstream mount.</p>

<p>That being said, I don't feel Hoya has made any really bad moves yet. I'm not sure how much of the 645D/K-7/K-x lineup was preplanned by Pentax or planned under new Hoya management, but if Pentax operations are profitable today, why would they want to sell it - and who would undertake a risky acquisition in this economy?</p>

<p>As for people leaving Pentax, as long as Pentax overall is gaining market share (I expect that the K-x has sold much better and was more profitable than the K10D, but I have no data to support that), then why would Hoya worry about it? Pentax already stopped production of all their long lenses around 2004, because their customer base didn't generate enough demand - why would they be impressed by some people leaving these days?</p>

<p>Justin,</p>

<p> You are afraid Pentax is going to dry up on the line or loose its innovativeness under Hoya, correct? IMHO Pentax has been at times far less innovative than it is now. I've been on Photonet close to 10 years now. Over that time I would say that I saw Pentax in MUCH worse shape than it currently is in. The arguments were pretty much all the same as we hear now, love the products but everyone else's is newer, more innovative, etc. The market for SLRs was tiny anyway. The price of used equipment plunged as everyone kept thinking that Pentax would surely slip under the waves at some point, Right? <br>

But they haven't. They have done what they have had to do and still come up with fantastic products. I tell you I really love the K7 (thanks all for talking me into it and my daughter for breaking my K10D). That product and the KX, Kr, K5 as I see it are OUTSTANDING and all under Hoya, correct? They have pulled some things back. There maybe some bad choices there. Probably wasn't as bad as waiting 5 years to switch from M42 to K mount. probably wasn't as bad as not actively marketing the jewels they had when they were a leader. Or up dating their autofocus.<br>

As much as one can complain about this and that about the company they keep coming up with instrumentation that keeps us interested. If you asked me that I would want to get "yet another" 100mm macro lens when I already have three the obvious answer I would have given you is that you are crazy. But yet...<br>

Personally, I truly adore Pentax equipment. I feel like it is built for me. As much as I love the nature images that Canon equipment can help generate, Canon simply doesn't suit me well in terms of value and size of bodies. I like Nikon fine and in another reality may have gone down that line. Pentax can't match the production and innovative engineering that Canon and Nikon can. But I have to say they really have some awesome dedicated equipment there, more than I would ever need. Their marketing staff may (at times) all have needed to been fired, but not their engineers.<br>

Admittedly I am not a business person. I question though why they can't retool some of their standouts in new lines. Take the 600mm f4 FA/F. Awesome lens. I watched the prices fall on those in the late 90s and figured that I would jump on one after the long predicted demise of Pentax. It didn't happen. Now I'd be lucky to find one of those lenses for less than $10,000. If they have already engineered a product like that and presumably have the ability to remanufacturer the product, why do they have to start from scratch? (Meaning Pentax really needs a +400mm lens!).<br>

So now we have a rainbow of colors to choose from in KX and Kr. Hoya choice? I probably won't get one, but I think its a neat idea.<br>

But if you do bump into any of the old engineers in Japan, can you ask them to make me one more of those 600mm f4 FA? Pleaseeeeee!!!!!</p>

<p>My opinions, in a very tight nutshell:</p>

<ul>

<li>Don't try to compete with Canon and Nikon, trying to win in the dSLR game. That battle is hopeless.*</li>

<li>Don't chase the "fool frame" rainbow. It's irrelevant. And it won't be long before today's "fool frame" (the ancient 24x36mm 35mm film paradigm) will be irrelevant. Within five years it won't be good enough, other than for HD video. Pros and well heeled dilettantes will demand fuller-than-full frame, a medium format equivalent in bodies no larger than today's flagship dSLRs.</li>

<li>If Pentax wants to get serious, skip the entire fool frame era. Start now to prepare an affordable medium format sensor, equivalent to their film era 645 and 6x7 systems. They have five years to get it ready, because I'm betting that's when the current honeymoon with the 24x36 fool frame era will be over... if even that long.</li>

<li>The only genuinely viable alternative market for a still/video hybrid is in the non-SLR paradigm. That's where Pentax could carve out a niche. Dump the optical prism SLR handcuffs. Shoot for an APS sensor size non-SLR, interchangeable lens body that will surpass the Olympus/Panasonic Micro 4/3, which is the only viable alternative now and for the foreseeable future. A Pentax equivalent to the Konica Hexar with good optical viewfinder, some fast interchangeable primes and one dynamite fast midrange zoom, built-in stabilization, that excellent weather/water-proofing, and good high ISO performance... that would win over some folks who are tired of lugging around bulky, heavy SLRs (like me).</li>

</ul>

<p>*Even Nikon may eventually lose out to Canon over an unanticipated new paradigm - HD video. Nikon's F-mount isn't as well suited to accepting the wide range of lenses wanted by serious cinematographers. Canon made the smart move long ago by switching from the FD mount to a mount that accepts more lenses with adapters and still retain infinity focus. Nikon blew it by not switching earlier from the F-mount. It will cost Nikon dearly in coming years as HD video in 24x36 dSLR hybrids gain in popularity among cinematographers and low budget movie makers.</p>

<p>Doug,</p>

<p>I love my Pentax gear. I've recently made more purchases further committing to it. I'm not on my way out the door, but I am worried Hoya isn't fully in this game. As I said back in 2006, even if Pentax stopped making cameras and lenses tomorrow, I'd probably be able to shoot my gear for at least a decade via used bodies, repairs, and stocking up on a few new bodies if available.</p>

<p>Lex,</p>

<p>I've haven't been a fan of Fools Frame since about 2006. Once I got my Sigma 10-20 in 2007 the Fools Frame debate was over for me. The reason I wanted it was to use legacy legacy wides. I outgrew that and realized it wasn't a legitimate (or intelligent) reason to hang on to what is increasingly proven to be a niche format on digital.Aside from that digital wide angles matured to the point they were plentiful and higher in quality than their now overpriced and rare film ancestors.</p>

<p>What worked for film isn't necessarily best for digital. Since about 2007 I firmly believe the APS-C format is the ideal format for 35mm style photography in the digital era. I think it's the sweet spot in quality to cost to system size ratio. All those things appeal to me.</p>

<p>IMO, as little as Hoya seems to be investing in Pentax, they CANNOT afford to use production capacity and R&D funds to reproduce an entire FF lens lineup. I think if people are eager to see the end of Pentax they will keep wishing for this, those that like their gear will hope Pentax never makes this sort of fools move. Minolta was a company that was overly aggressive a few times, and it never recovered from it's mistakes. I have no issues with Pentax being conservative, I do have issues with Hoyas seeming mismanagement.</p>

<p>I agree though, if they don't want to or cannot compete in the DSLR market (which I think they can as a niche player) they need to seriously look at producing a Fuji X100 type OVF hybrid APS-C. <br /><br />I think that, plus a high end DSLR like a K-7/K-5 and perhaps a lower end model (K-r) and the 645D would be plenty to keep them relevant.<br>

<br />The question is, does Hoya share this vision going forward?</p>

<p>Too many cooks spoil the broth is an adage which would well apply to the manufacture of digital cameras and lenses. Look what happened to good old Konica- Minolta when they were bought out by Sony.<br /> So, going by that reasoning, if I were a director of Hoya I would be courting a Chinese company to buy Pentax from them. Try to work out a deal where the new shareholders inject capital when needed, and otherwise keep their nose out of everyday developments. China is a cashed up country and they are looking for good investments.</p>

<p>Let Pentax suck from the Chinese teat for a couple of years, see what happens to their growth potential then!</p>

<p>LG, HP, and Kodak are unlikely buyers (as was Samsung) in part because they are not Japanese.</p>

<p>For what it's worth, I'm not 100% convinced that <a href="http://www.sekonic.com/pages/about.asp">Sekonic</a> (originally Seiko Electric Industries) is part of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seiko">Seiko Holdings</a>/Seiko Epson (Seiko Watch|Clocks|Precision|Jewelry etc.)...found it difficult to tie them together...however if you're looking for a somewhat more direct photographic connection, I think Seiko (Precision, I think) is a party much involved with the development of the modern electronic focal plane shutter and a number of companies including Pentax incorporated Seiko shutters into their SLRs including the K2 and ME Super.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Andrew, you're quite right. Seiko is a common word, "truth" and a lot of instrumentation companies make truthful watches, light meters, sound pressure meters, thermometers, and absolutely no connection to each other.</p>

<p>Lex, you're looking, well, "foolish" with all this "fool frame! fool frame!" stuff. It's not going away, it's gaining market share. It's still the way to go if you want the most comprehensive and versatile lens systems. And, with the MF sensor makers dying off, unless Nikon or Canon decides to enter the market, it's MF that lacks a future.</p>

<p>Justin, Hoya is anything but an electronics company. They're first and foremost an optical glass company. Did you know that they have an art glass division? Hoya employees were doing spare time projects making sculptures from scrap optical glass. That grew. I have several pieces in my collection. They've got a good soul, and they're pretty compatible with Pentax. If Pentax's camera operation isn't profitable, it's not Hoya's fault.<br>

As far as your 1.4x teleconverter, blame that on the weird marketing agreement between Hoya's Kenko, Tokina, and Pentax divisions. They've got an excellent 1.4x converter, just not the mount that they actually own. It's that whole "can't do a Pentax mount unless it's Pentax labeled" thing that means the only Pentax mount 1.4x TC is the Sigma ;)</p>

<p>Joseph, my only rap against all the panting over full frame is that it hogties photographers and manufacturers to an obsolete paradigm. There's no valid reason for a digital sensor to mimic precisely the physical dimensions or aspect ratio of 35mm film. It makes about as much sense as the slavish adherence to print sizes like 8x10s that don't match the 3:2 aspect ratio. Sometimes things become standards because they make sense. But this isn't one of those cases.</p>

<p>Hanging onto existing lens systems is backward justification. The same lenses could cover a square as well as a 24x36 rectangle. It'd offer far more flexibility. Some clever tricks could be used to enhance the appeal, such as the type of electronic masking already used for DX lenses on FX bodies. The only thing preventing it is habit, that slavish addiction to a paradigm that no longer makes sense.</p>

<p>And I'm surprised at the number of photographers who are old enough to know better who seem to regard the 24x36 paradigm as the be-all, end-all of photography. It was miniature format then and it's still miniature format. No matter how many megapickles are crammed into that sensor it's still miniature format and still imposes limits that can only be overcome with a larger recording medium. Put a 6:4.5 or larger sensor in a camera body that's too large for most practical purposes yet houses only DX and FX sensors (the typical Nikon D1/2/3 series), and then it will make sense.</p>

<p>Either way, and more pertinent to this discussion, it's not market savvy for Pentax to continue chasing either Canon or Nikon in the dSLR game, or worrying about "full frame" until they've carved out a foothold in one of the few niches left for the rest of the pack to claim: the small body, compact, lightweight, interchangeable lens non-SLR. There's still plenty of room to challenge the Micro 4:3 cameras.</p>

<p>Justin,<br />There’s a lot of angst in your original post. While it’s therapeutic to output a missive like this, I guess I disagree on the content’s bearing with reality. I think that Pentax is in a really good groove right now and I praise Hoya for applying some corporate discipline to facilitate the success.<br /><br />Now it may not be the groove I need Pentax to be in, but that’s OK. The DSLR market is shaking out again, and companies have to stake some territory to distinguish their brands. We see that Olympus is much more focused on mirrorless, small cameras with interchangeable lenses. We see that Fuji is targeting great design for the “rangefinder” approach and has left the DSLR space. And Pentax is aiming for the youthful and value-oriented entry-level market. Plus the 645D. That’s a pretty interesting focusing of energy. <br /><br />A year ago I was concerned that Hoya, being a manufacturing company, rather than a product-marketing company, was not going to support the necessary retail objectives inherent to the Pentax brand. But the success of the K-x and the fun ways they are marketing the K-r, is showing me that Hoya/Pentax has their act together quite well. <br /><br />I’m also encouraged by the 645D’s expansion into new geography that will challenge their customer support resources. I expected this to happen a year later, but doing it sooner is indicative of drive. The better corporations that I’ve worked for are the ones that identify their goals and pursue them strongly but sanely. The old Pentax I believe was incapable of executing like this; the Hoya Pentax is.<br /><br />What that means on an in-hand component level, is that our kind of shooters are not going to get those fast lenses and quality TCs and improved strobes and longer zooms we crave for quite a while—if ever. We ain’t the targeted customer anymore. That was a contributing driver to my taking on Canon, but there’s still some of my budget left for what Pentax does best. Interestingly, I’ve been asked about Pentax more during the past 6 months than ever before (from folks new to DSLRs, but not photography), so I think the brand awareness is growing, finally.<br /><br />Hoya may well take on a production and marketing partner, but to me the timing is off for an outright sale of the brand and assets. It feels like we’re only in the second year of a five-year re-engineering and remarketing plan. I’m looking forward to the next three years.<br>

ME</p>

<p>Actually, I think Pentax is doing a pretty good job of defining a niche for itself in a world dominated by C/N: Tight, small, well built cameras suited, above all, for field use.<br>

Lex is quite right about FF. It's an illusion.<br>

Legacy glass?<br>

It's nice as an occasional diversion. I even have some good long glass, like a 645 A* 300/4.<br>

But you know what? The APS-C Pentax lenses are better than the old stuff.<br>

Life moves on. Stay with it.</p>

<p>actually, I think seiko shutters are still used. Might be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time. Hmm, i'd like some more proof sekonic isn't part of seiko. We still aren't sure tokina is or isn't part of hoya, among other japanese company questions.<br /><br /><br /></p>

<p> ME,<br /><br />I can't say it enough, love my gear. Added 1400$ plus in additional gear this half year. If I get around to it, the 60-250 will be another $1100. On the flip side you have probably cashed out that much from the system in that same span?<br /><br />I don't like the direction of the company. As a close to 20 year Pentax shooter, 15 with my own gear, over half of that generating income from my Pentax gear, I feel comfortable with that opinion.<br /><br />Most of the people commenting Pentax is doing an A+ job aren't Pentax shooters anymore or perhaps ever. This alone should be concerning. <br /><br /><br /></p>

<p>Justin,<br>

First let's be clear here: you solicited opinions about your opinion. That means some give but a spirit of inquiry implies a lot of take.</p>

<p>Secondly, your unsettledness about Pentax comes through clear; I only wish you better articulate why. Gotta be more than their not releasing a few new high-end lenses.</p>

<p>Regarding increased negative posts about the brand, I discount kvetching on websites because the purpose is therapeutic. There may be some sociological meaning there about a brand's users, but not enough data to draw much useful information about a product's quality when over half a millions cameras are sold yearly.</p>

<p>Thirdly it's wholly irrelevant (and a rather tacky callout) how much money I garnered from thinning out the herd, as is how much you intend to spend. Nor is it relevant that folks who may disagree with your opinion may not be using Pentax equipment as much as they did. Last time i checked this isn't religion, nor is it a multi-level marketing recruitment program. I thought the topic at hand was the performance of Hoya in managing the Pentax brand. Let's keep it to that.</p>

<p>ME</p>

<p>Hi Lex. I hope my answers don't confound you too much. They're largely based on work in optical psychophysics (human visual perception) and optical physics, with a bit of art history thrown in.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There's no valid reason for a digital sensor to mimic precisely the physical dimensions or aspect ratio of 35mm film.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There are reasons to "mimic", or to simply "utilize" a 43mm diagonal. It's a good size to work with on Earth, with our particular gravity, an abundant supply of silica (sand), and bipedal primates our size working the cameras. Our physical strength and endurance sets the sizes of our photographic materials, developing trays, the size of books we hold comfortably, etc.</p>

<p>Silica sand makes (relatively) affordable glass. We, as humans, are fairly comfortable with cameras about 500-1000g hanging around our necks, or held in our hands for extended times. That means around a 50mm f1.4 normal for 35mm, or a 80-100mm f2.8 normal for 6x6 or 6x7 medium format. They give essentially the same image, same DOF, same low light ability (the MF needs 4x faster film to do this, but since it's only getting enlarged half as much, that works out fine. The whole "equivalence theory" thing goes back to the film days).</p>

<p>So, that's where we end up, 100mm f2.8 on MF, 50mm f1.4 on FF are basically equivalent, in terms of results. 25mm f0.7 on a 22mm diagonal format, like the old 110 film, or the current Four Thirds DSLR would be equivalent, too, but even today, low cost 25mm f0.7 lenses are beyond our reach (and I won't get into the technological muck-up that's the Oly 14-35mm and 35-100mm f2.0 zooms). But when you go to build the camera, 35mm turns out to be a "sweet spot". You can build an SLR that has a 40mS blackout, which is compatible with human vision. You can give it a 1/250 sec x-sync on a focal plane shutter, which is compatible with doing fill flash with capacitor banks that you can carry easily on camera and charge in seconds on AA sized batteries.</p>

<p>We know how to make a medium format 100mm f1.4 normal, but it's a 1200g lens. ;)</p>

<p>As far as the "aspect ratio of 35mm film", there simply is no such thing. 35mm cameras have geared sprocket drives, it's practical to make them in any aspect ratio that is desired. There have been 24mm square format 35mm cameras (including a Zeiss Ikon). Nikon launched their first rangefinders in 24x31mm format. There were 24x30, 24x42, even the 24x67 pan formats. 24x21 vertical, half frame vertical (Oly) and horizontal (Yashika).</p>

<p>People like 3:2 horizontal landscapes. Anyone with an art education knows of the "golden ratio", 1.62:1. It's close to the human accumulated visual scene (a psychophysics term), the about 1.7:1 rectangle that we "scan" to build a scene. A 3:2 rectangle looks pretty good when framed on its own, and the ratio makes it easy to work with when measuring. Or it can be cropped to wider ratios fairly efficiently.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It makes about as much sense as the slavish adherence to print sizes like 8x10s that don't match the 3:2 aspect ratio.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The 8x10 is a nice size for a head and torso portrait or a head shot, or two people standing side by side. It also works well for a family portrait. It's the "bread and butter" size for commercial photography. And 3:2 crops to 8x10 fairly well, too.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Sometimes things become standards because they make sense. But this isn't one of those cases.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, I'm afraid it is.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Hanging onto existing lens systems is backward justification. The same lenses could cover a square as well as a 24x36 rectangle. It'd offer far more flexibility</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, they can't. The three most expensive lenses I own, the 300mm f2.8, 14-24mm f2.8, 200mm f4 micro-Nikkor, either have internal baffles or permanent attached petal hoods that restrict them to 24x36mm rectangular. And all of my cameras are SLRs. I don't own an EVIL, yet. There's none out there that focus as quickly as SLRs. You can't have a 43mm diagonal square format SLR, because the 30.6mm square format would demand a 43.3mm long mirror, and the back of the lens is only 39mm from the sensor. That comes from a 33.9mm tall (24mm * sqrt(2)) mirror.</p>

<p>Square does not offer "more flexibility". It always has to be cropped. You crop away 20% to get an 8x10, and 33% to get a 3:2. You only crop 7% off a 3:2 to get an 8x10, and you don't chop anything to get 3:2. It is wide angle lenses that have the most restricted image circles, when you need to worry about using everything that the lens has to offer. And wide angle shots are the ones usually printed horizontal, at 3:2 (or longer). Portrait teles have plenty of image circle, no one minds that 7% crop to get to 8x10.</p>

<p>And, for the time being, cameras still have focal plane shutters. Those are more efficient in rectangular aspect ratios.</p>

<p>Consider that there are no more square format cameras currently in production. everyone who has ever made a square format camera has either gone under or has moved to rectangular formats. If there's a "fool frame", it's square.</p>

<p>Justin,<br />I haven't had a chance to read all the responses herein, but I can tell you that Pentax is doing better today than it has for the last 10 years or so. The K-x, the K-7, the 645D and the P&S W90 all have contributed greatly into reviving the Pentax of yesteryears. The move away from the Samsung sensors is a great move. Samsung is more of a competitor to Pentax that the big guys. Using Samsung was like asking your enemy to work for you. <br />Pentax is on a roll and gaining the reputation it once had. The K-x and the multi-colors availability has brought the younger generation in and they are the future. NO, they will not produce a full (fools) frame DSLR. It would be ludicrous as the 24x36 format is just a remnant of the 35mm film era. Pentax will undoudebly embark in the EVIL cameras with the APS-C sensors and all the current and future lenses will be compatible. The future Pro Format will end up in sensor sizes in the region of the "Medium Format" systems. The P&S cameras will be replaced by the cell phones (maybe Pentax will team up with someone in that market) The APS-C format will remain and a new standard for larger format sensors will be established in the near future. I think that Pentax is in an excellent position for the near future. <br /><br />The above are not official announcements, they are my predictions...and I stay close to Pentax.</p>

<p>I have long felt that Kodak and Pentax were a good fit for each other. </p>

<p>"NO, they will not produce a full (fools) frame DSLR. It would be ludicrous as the 24x36 format is just a remnant of the 35mm film era"<br>

They may not produce a FF camera, but not for that reason. They won't just because there probably isn't enough of a market for them. While I agree that 3:2 is an obsolete format, I'd also argue that you can't produce a camera with a format that will satisfy everyone. Every photo demands a different format.</p>

<p>John, that is just plain cruel.</p>

<p>Justin, I can't add to the specific comments about technology, partnerships and future direction. However if I take the thread title at face value I have mixed thoughts.</p>

<p>As a frustrated Olympus E510 and twin kit lens user I still want to use a camera with a better viewfinder so the EOS60D/D7000/K5 class of late 2010 has great appeal. Here in the UK my local camera stores are Jessops but they don't stock Pentax so the last one I picked up was a K10D 3 or 4 years ago. It felt as if it wasn't quite developed and needed a bit of refinement. I have to drive 30 miles to pick up a K7 or the new K5. I have picked up an EOS60D and can't quite connect with it, not really sure why, I suspect I will like the K5 and the D7000.</p>

<p>However, as soon as the stores bolt on these massive consumer zooms to any of these brands I find myself switching off and this is the reason for replying. The Samsung NX10, NX100, Sony NEX5 and Olympus Pen cameras really spoil us with compact lenses (until getting into telephoto focal lengths) and have a real attraction if they can get the autofocus speed and EVF quality sorted quickly.</p>

<p>Speaking solely as an amateur who is not in the market for full frame, top lenses nor commercial assignments this feels to be the biggest threat to 'investing' in any of the DSLRs. The Canikon brands continue to whip up the desire but I doubt most of us need (or really want) the DSLRs and as a result the expenditure feels fragile.</p>

<p>Joseph, I've never claimed to be a mathmagician, but isn't an 8x10 a 17% loss from 3:2 (8x12) format and not 7%? And no, I'm being serious and not facetious. :-) Besides, 3:2 is hardly perfect. Everyone knows an elliptical format would revolutionize photography.... that and a Richard Avedon button. ;-)</p>

<p>Justin, I'm not scared for Pentax. I'm scared for Hoya. They won't know what they've got until they've crushed it, but I find it promising that Pentax continues to be innovative despite being largely sand boxed. I bet that there's a fix for SDM failures, slow AF, 30mm f/0.8 primes, 600mm optically stabilized lenses, and 3xTC's somewhere in there... but I imagine that Hoya treats Pentax's innovations like The Beatles treated Ringo Star's song writing abilities. Hoya would prefer that Pentax just sit behind the kit and just keep time.</p>

<p>I'm 2 years into Pentax after 20+ years of Canon so I cannot comment too much on the history of Pentax, but I'd say that their most significant recent releases are their new camera bodies, first the Kx and K7 and soon to be the Kr and K5. I find this to be very surprising considering that HOYA is first and foremost an optical company. I'd have expected that since HOYA's takeover their most significant new releases would have been new lenses rather than bodies, but no. I hope it is only a matter of time (and not too long) before HOYA begins to produce some exciting lenses for their Pentax bodies.<br>

My hope is that HOYA feared that if they lagged behind on the bodies they would see their lens sales lag regardless of whatever wonderful new glass they developed so they concentrated on catching up to the other big players in the body department. That and developing the 645D maybe took all of their resources since the takeover to now. Hopefully now that the 645D is in production and the Kr & K5 are about to hit the shelves, maybe they can divert some attention to addressing the gaps that some perceive in their lens lineup.<br>

For me personally I'd like:</p>

<ul>

<li> to buy a 50-135/2.8 with confidence that I won't experience SDM failure</li>

<li>a 1.4x (or 1.7x) teleconverter</li>

<li>a 28/1.4 built like the DA Ltd or even better like the D FA 100/2.8 macro for less than $1000 (or anything 24-35). I might even settle for an updated FA 31/1.8 Ltd if it could be a bit smaller (optimized for APS-C and lose the aperture ring) and quick-shift focusing.</li>

</ul>

<p>I guess my newness to Pentax is revealed by my comments on the FA 31/1.8 Ltd as I call for loosing the aperture ring. Frankly I have one on my FA 135/2.8 and never use it so I'd rather have one less mechanical thing to fail and would rather gain a smaller, cheaper, lighter, less complex lens and forfeit the aperture ring. Sorry to those that consider the aperture ring to be essential.<br>

Give me the above and I'll sell off what's remaining of my Canon kit.</p>

<p>Well, maybe it's just me....but Pentax seems to have the best offering it's had in a decade. Great DA* lenses, I love my wifes K-x and my K20D. I'm looking at ditching Canon altogether and using the K5, K20D and Pentax films bodies for my professional work. I see more and more Pentax bodies in use than I have for years.</p>

<p>Looks fine from where I'm standing.</p>