pwithem Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 <p>Not sure what to think. <br> The K5 seems like a great product (which I want, but still expensive), and the Q seems like a misfire; tipping the novelty vs function scale over the edge on the novelty side. In truth we have yet to see how it functions and how the market bears it out. But, it's just under 2/3 cost of a K5 and will its dof or fov hope to compare with dslr interchangeable lens systems? If not, and with such a small sensor, why bother with interchangeable lenses at all? <br> I'm still just twitchy at the Q product direction. I'd really hoped to see progression toward a FF product, with emphasis on compactness that Pentax does well and seems to get market acknowledgement for. Also, with FF, it would reinvigorate sales of their already existing and renowned FF lens lineup! And oh would I love to have a WR pancake lens, or 2, or 3, be they APS-C or FF. That would be such a win people would buy into pentax for it alone. But with Q they start from scratch and it may tank...<br> Ok, sorry for the rant. So which way will Ricoh go?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian s. forsyth Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 <p>I guess the#1 lens on my wish list, the K mount endoscope will never come to light. Oh well it was a shot in the dark that Hoya would release it in k mount before selling off Pentax imaging<br> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/13609252-md.jpg" alt="" width="679" height="450" /></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeremy_corbin Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 <p>@Ian, Classic. :-)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 <p>Pentax at one time worked with Ricoh on the SLR's. Seems the wheel has turned. I will not be affected as my Pentax system all film, will last many more years. I use a Chinon SLR which is a dead ringer for a Nikon F-3. Only mounts differ.<br> My Minolta Dimage 600 Point and shoot digital, can also take a "Sony Memory Stick" and SD. It says Konica somewhere..Has the sharpest, best tonal scale of all my digitals..</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff_livacich Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 <p>An interestingly named device, the endoscope. I guess calling it rearendoscope was considered a bit much.<br> Operating one sounds like a crappy job-I'm sure some are deterred.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wayne_campbell Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 <p>It might be a little soft in the corners (Thank God!)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_elenko Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 One waggy scenario: Ricoh currently offers large complete solutions for their corporate customers--actually the direct customers are resellers who package digital imaging products with document management services. Our in-house printing operation was totally outsourced to an in-building provider running a Ricoh or Canon solution. I can see an analogous solution involving the 645D. Customers would be museums, institutions, collectors, corporations etc. needing high-quality archiving and asset management solutions. That $10,000 camera then becomes the core of a six-figure product. If things magically shake out this way, I wonder if sales of the 645D to individual photographers would continue. High-touch service combined with lower margins may kill that channel. I also think that the K-5 maybe the end of the line for high-end Pentax APC-C DSLRs. Too-low sales and too many pricey lenses to make to meet system expectations. The entry K-r kinda thing will continue as there is volume there and fewer lenses to deal with. Also some of the smaller Limited lenses can be purposed towards a mirrorless body or multiple bodies. That is the camera future of Pentax. A repriced Q or say a Q-r may turn out to be the best selling Pentax product in decades. Interesting times indeed. ME Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rparmar Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 <p>Michael Elenko:</p> <blockquote>I also think that the K-5 maybe the end of the line for high-end Pentax APC-C DSLRs. Too-low sales and too many pricey lenses to make to meet system expectations. </blockquote> I think it more likely that the higher-priced items have far greater profit margin, judging by the build and features of the low-priced K-r as compared with the much more expensive K-5. The lens issue is separate from that of the K-5 and not likely to be an issue if Ricoh pursues high-end customers. Many such would have no problem in dropping several thousand on a lens line-up, at least judging by how Canikon buyers behave.<br /><br /> My interpretation of the press statements is that Ricoh bought Pentax for the high-end, where they have no products currently, not the low-end where they already have a presence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wayne_campbell Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 <p> "not the low-end where they already have a presence." Here we go again...that endoscope stuff...... </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miserere_mei Posted July 2, 2011 Author Share Posted July 2, 2011 <blockquote> <p>Robin wrote:<br> My interpretation of the press statements is that Ricoh bought Pentax for the high-end, where they have no products currently, not the low-end where they already have a presence.</p> </blockquote> <p>I have the same suspicions, Robin. Pentax has a crappy P&S line (excepting the water-resistant cameras) while Ricoh has excellent, if niche-y, P&Ss. Pentax has excellent DSLRs, while Ricoh has none. Ricoh has an APS-C mirrorless camera, while Pentax doesn't. The two companies complement each other well and their lines fit together like jigsaw pieces. Well, except for the Q. The Pentax Q is that jigsaw piece that's left over at the end of the puzzle and you can't figure out where it goes :-)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yvon_bourque2 Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 <p>The purchase of Pentax by Ricoh, just a few years after Hoya acquired them, reminds me of my own career demise back in 2001. Why would you care about my career? You don’t have to care about my career at all, but there is a lesson learned here, that I would like to share. Here’s my little insignificant story <em>(given that I’m only one person among seven plus billions of people on our small planet)</em> : <br /><br />I worked all of my adult life as a mechanical engineer, slowly advancing in my career from Design Engineer to Project Manager for hundreds of million dollars projects. During the last ten years of my employment, I worked for five Companies, without ever having to move to a new office. The original Company had been started by two brothers, seventy years before. With hard work and dedication, they had turned a small Company of less than ten workers to a great Company of five thousand employees. We specialized in Engineering and Construction of Pulp and Paper plants, Chemical plants, Refineries and other types of industrial complexes. <br /><br />So...ten years prior to my career ending, the Company was purchased by another Giant Engineering and Construction Company because they wanted the expertise of our Pulp and Paper division. Money always talks and soon after the acquisition, new “Golden Boys” from the new owner started replacing our management. Some of the industries we were serving were dropped and hundreds of long time employees lost their jobs. The Company changed hands five times during the following ten years, laying off employees and downsizing the company further each time. Finally, “Raytheon” <em>(a monster size Corporation for people that don’t know who they are)</em> purchased us. Our Company had climbed back to a viable size by then, although we were serving completely different clients than when the company was originally founded. As history tends to repeats itself, Raytheon bought us for a specific area of our expertise, for the location we were operating at, and primarily because we were a competitor in some areas of our work. After warm welcomes from their management and promises of a better future, the cycle started repeating itself but this time around, they completely brought us to extinction. For them, although we were bought for about one hundred million dollars, we were just a dangling leaf at the end of a tree branch. They eliminated the small competition we were to them, got a great tax break and put several thousand employees out of a job. <br /><br />It is obvious now, that Hoya bough Pentax for their medical endoscope optics and perhaps other branches of the company, but didn’t want the imaging department. They did bring Pentax Imaging up, but maybe with the purpose in mind of getting the division somewhat profitable, or promising enough to resell it. Now we might see Ricoh-Pentax on the next generation of cameras, for a while, anyway, then maybe just Ricoh and there are good chances that current Pentax employees will be replaced by Ricoh’s Golden Boys. After all, Ricoh has a Digital Imaging department. <strong><br /><br /><br />“My Opinion Only”</strong> My take on all of this changing hand is that Corporations are killing businesses all over this globe, and we let them, <em>(We the governments, not We the people).</em> It’s the big fish eating the little fish. We let them get so big that governments cannot let them fail and wind up bailing them out…with our money, the money of the little people...us.<br> <br />It would really be shameful if a pioneer name like “Pentax” would disappear. Hopefully, in the end, this last acquisition will be a better fit than the Hoya venture. Hope this will not be another Konica-Minolta.<br /><br /></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
will_daniel1 Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 In 1977 I was a (Pentax) sales rep for the Honeywell Photo Division. Honeywell sold the division to Rollei of America, and Pentax went its own separate way. I made the huge mistake of going to work for Rollei. That employment lasted just a few months, and I went to the other side -- Pentax Corporation. When I filed my 1977 income tax return, I had W2 forms from an American, a German and a Japanese company, and all three were staffed with the same people I had worked with for several years. Ironically, our East Coast sales manager at Honeywell went on to become the national sales manage for Ricoh. I wonder if he had anything to do with this deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rparmar Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 <p>Ha ha -- endoscopy forever!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul_de_ley Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 <blockquote> <p>I'm curious about the branding and naming. Will the venerable Pentax brand stand alone? I hope Ricoh is smarter than SONY was.</p> </blockquote> <p>There are a lot more close resemblances between Ricoh and Konica than between Ricoh and Sony, so (echoing the last few posts above) I'd be more worried whether Ricoh is smarter than Konica was. One important difference is that Konica was actually doing pretty well just before the merger with Minolta and the<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/08/business/minolta-and-konica-plan-to-merge-by-end-of-2003.html"> predicted post-merger crunch</a>, while Ricoh is doing this in the middle off layoffs and shrinking profits to begin with. In the worst case scenario business won't pick up in the next two-three years and if the top brass decides to cut even deeper the newest add-ons may well suffer the brunt. Although it's a shame to see a venerable brand name disappear, it's far worse still to lose an entire system. With the wisdom of hindsight Sony's approach was probably a smarter path business-wise, as well as a more emphatic statement of its ambition to become a serious competitor in the DSLR market in its own right.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henkc Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 <blockquote> <p>The Pentax Q is that jigsaw piece that's left over at the end of the puzzle and you can't figure out where it goes :-)</p> </blockquote> <p>Why does this also get me thinking about the endoscopes again :-).<br> On a more serious note, this worries me enough into holding back on buying lenses I don't need anyway.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mountainvisions Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 <blockquote> <p>I'm not sure I'd call Ricoh a "real camera company." They've been in the business a long time, but they've never been more than a very minor player, and it's a tiny fraction of what they do</p> </blockquote> <p>Interesting take. I look at Ricoh as being like Pentax, a small camera company that really likes producing cameras. I mean Pentax made printers and copiers and scanners, they also did medical products and binoculars. People forget how diverse Pentax actually was. Now, I'm not saying they were a market leader in any of those areas, except maybe medical equipment, but they were more diverse than cameras.</p> <p>Ricoh is obviously bigger in the corporate imaging (document scanning, copiers, etc) in the US (and I'm sure elsewhere), but they seem to have passion behind product design.</p> <p>For instance, Ricoh's compact camera segment will fit in nicely with Pentax LACK OF a compact camera segment. The Q actually fits in better now that Ricoh bought them. Although I still think it will go down as one of the worst decisions Pentax made.</p> <p>Ricoh on the other hand had no SLRs, no MF, and even smaller market presence than Pentax.</p> <p>Also, most people are well aware of my disgust for Pentax quality control and customer service under Hoya. It's really shameful how many issues seemed to have popped up post Hoya takeover, as well as the issues with repairs. If you are cutting quality control, you shouldn't also cut customer service and repair facilities. It's one thing when a product breaks, it happens, but it's another when getting it fixed requires jumping through hoops.</p> <p>Lastly, I want to thank the good people at Hoya for listening to the open letter I posted on these forums a few months back. Thanks for letting go of the camera division, which it was clear Hoya never really wanted.</p> <p>Obviously any merger/takeover might not workout they way we hope it will, but Ricoh does seem like a solid camera company at heart. Don't know if that is enough to surpass financial concerns long term, but I have more confidence than I did with Hoya.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mountainvisions Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 <blockquote> <p>I'm still just twitchy at the Q product direction. I'd really hoped to see progression toward a FF product,</p> </blockquote> <p>Patrick, Pentax does produce a full frame camera. It's the 645D.</p> <p>The K-5 is 10X more advanced than anything Pentax made in the 35mm era, they definitely have put their best foot forward in the APS-C sensor market, arguably making the best cameras and lenses for that format.</p> <p>I really don't understand what people think they are going to gain from the FF camera. I still believe these people have a closet full of FF lenses and feel cheated that they need have to use a multiplier.</p> <p>The question is, do you think Ricoh can pump enough money in to essentially build 4 systems? Q, APS-C, FF, 645D?</p> <p>Remember, they need to design and produce an entire line of FF lenses before they can release a full frame camera. At the very least they need to produce a few zooms to cover the bases.</p> <p>The final question is, does Pentax/Ricoh think they can recover the cost of that 4th line of lenses? It's been proven full frame (35mm) isn't some sort of magic sales pill. So unless people are lining up outside stores to buy this camera and lens system, it could be a money loser...and the end of Pentax!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mountainvisions Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 <blockquote> <p>The two companies complement each other well and their lines fit together like jigsaw pieces. Well, except for the Q. The Pentax Q is that jigsaw piece that's left over at the end of the puzzle and you can't figure out where it goes :-)</p> </blockquote> <p>Exactly, I just got to your post, after writing my post a few up. But we are on the same page.</p> <p>Good analogy. I think you (and I) are spot on. It is like a jigsaw puzzle. And again, I agree totally about the Q. Then again, the Q could replace that expensive Ricoh modular compact. However, that compact has some advantages the Q doesn't.</p> <p>Finally, I think ME is wrong about the APS-C cameras. Ricoh stated they wanted more presense in the market. Buying Pentax for it's compact line and for it's 645D would just be dumb. The only decent or interesting cameras Pentax makes in the compact line are the W series. Those are solid, but the IQ is nothing special. The 645D is a high end niche product at this point.</p> <p>So what is left? Oh, APS-C cameras!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anirbanbanerjee Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 <blockquote> <p>The question is, do you think Ricoh can pump enough money in to essentially build 4 systems? Q, APS-C, FF, 645D?</p> </blockquote> <p>With Pentax on board, Ricoh would already have 4 systems, counting Ricoh's own GXR. The Q and the GXR compete head on. Do Ricoh need to kill off one system?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeremy_corbin Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 <p>Maybe I'm missing something, but I think the Q would be perfectly fine if sold as a keychain for $50-75. They could place it in Kroger and Walmart next to the cheap SD cards and thumb drives. But I don't really understand what purpose the Q has beyond that. Maybe Ricoh will pay for a TV spot so we can see what the intent of the Pentax Q is.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pwithem Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 <blockquote> <p>Patrick, Pentax does produce a full frame camera. It's the 645D. ...<br> I really don't understand what people think they are going to gain from the FF camera. I still believe these people have a closet full of FF lenses and feel cheated that they need have to use a multiplier.</p> </blockquote> <p>The 645D is simply a non-choice for the vast majority of people, so I can't really take that comment seriously. Pentax digital FF isn't going to bring world peace, and its true that its value (I think) would depend most strongly on a user's current lens collection. You get more fov on your wide angle lenses. You can also argue the better iso performance with larger sensor size. Those could be really big, depending on what you like to shoot. <br> Whether digital FF makes sense financially for Pentax I can't say because I don't see their books; I can just name what I want and point out a logic to pursuing that direction. They already have FF lens designs and maintain current production of several flagship products (31/43/77 mm limiteds), which have very marketable reputations. It seems more than half their work is done for them, whereas with Q they have to convince people that system is great, plus design and build new lenses to outfit that system. <br> I like that Pentax is willing to try out Q, because it shows they're willing to pursue outside-of-the-box ideas - and I hope it works out for them, but I don't want it for myself. <br> I think the "twitch" that I referred to earlier was because Q reminds me of the direction an mp3 maker called iRiver took - they used to make really great and ergonomic mp3 players before iPods (which chain you to Apple) came on the scene. Then instead of competing with their strengths, they just starting going ultra novelty and cutesy with Mickey Mouse shaped mp3 players that were "really small", etc. iRiver still exists, but they're not very relevant. <br> Anyway, Q is not Mickey Mouse, it just reminds me of Mickey Mouse! </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeremy_corbin Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 <p>RE: Sensor size<br> The whole 35mm ("FF") sensor versus the (645, 67, etc) MF sensors is the same as it was 20 years ago. The Professionals that needed MF gear were generally in studio environments while most other Professionals relied on the "amateur" 35mm format that the photo-journalists were fond of. Using 120 or 135 each have their advantages and disadvantages; Neither are perfect for every task. That's why the whole "sensor" argument to me is a mute issue: What really matters is what you're using the sensor for:</p> <ul> <li>If you love wide-angle lenses, use a 35mm sensor.</li> <li>If you love telephoto lenses, use an APS-C sensor.</li> <li>If you do a ton of studio work and you have the cash, use a MF sensor.</li> <li>If you're in love with Ansel, go buy an 8x10.</li> </ul> <p>And all of those formats have pros and cons. I don't think I'd chase my kids around the backyard with an 8x10...You get the idea. I hear the whole "Full Frame is better" argument a lot, and all I can think of to say is,"What are you shooting that requires it?"<br> I swear I must be getting old: I've been crabby and opinionated lately. Mea Culpa.</p> <p>RE: Ricoh<br> I'm sort of with the "wait and see" mentality. I have some reservations about it, but if i means that Pentax can pack a little more punch in their business, I'm all for it. (Maybe bring the F and FA series back online as less-expensive alternatives to the DA* and LTDs?) Just as long as they don't muck up the name "Pentax" by hyphenating it... or even deleting it altogether. I'd be sad about that, but maybe I'm being too sentimental.<br> On the other side of the coin, one of my favorite Nifty-50s is a Ricoh. I like it. It's sharp and has a completely different look and feel than the Pentax 50s.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mountainvisions Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 <blockquote> <p>They already have FF lens designs and maintain current production of several flagship products (31/43/77 mm limiteds), which have very marketable reputations. It seems more than half their work is done for them, whereas with Q they have to convince people that system is great, plus design and build new lenses to outfit that system.</p> </blockquote> <p>Patrick, their FF designs are from the film era, and the venerable 31mm isn't quite as good on digital. Neither is the 77. Both have fringing issues and some other problems on digital (though mostly fringing). Certainly with the new in camera RAW processing lens corrections this might be mitigated to a great extent, but it's nevertheless an issue.</p> <p>As far as the other lenses, they could probably just use the old designs, but again, they would have issues on digital sensors that modified designs wouldn't. You might not care, but when people are comparing the lenses on the measurebating sites around the web, they will stick out like sore thumbs.</p> <p>Finally, there is very, very limited ISO boost. Remember, you can use a lower ISO but open up the aperture a stop, getting the same exact image. So ISO 3200 on a FF camera at 1/500 and f/4, is the same as ISO 1600 on an APS-C at 1/500 and f/2.8. There is very little actual improvement.</p> <p>On the flip side, the sensor does cost more, the glass for larger lenses does cost more, and the whole system cost more. If you haven't noticed, though the K-5 is probably the best APS-C camera in terms of IQ, and possibly features as well, it is often thought of as expensive. Full frame cameras and lenses would be more expensive.</p> <p>The bottom line, sell the closet full of full frame glass, buy a K-5 and designed for digital lenses, and be happy. The IQ from these cameras is excellent, and many of the lenses are better than their Nikon and Canon counter parts. Essentially what I am saying is, you are losing almost nothing with the K-5 and Pentax DA* and DA Limited glass, and gain very little (except on the long end with very expensive used options) with FA glass.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mountainvisions Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 <blockquote> <p>If you're in love with Ansel, go buy an 8x10.</p> </blockquote> <p>I love Ansel, but I decided to follow Rowell (who also loved Ansel)! </p> <p>There is more than one way to skin a catfish.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rparmar Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 <p>Jeremiah Corbin wrote:</p> <blockquote> <p>That's why the whole "sensor" argument to me is a mute issue: What really matters is what you're using the sensor for:</p> <ul> <li>If you love wide-angle lenses, use a 35mm sensor.</li> <li>If you love telephoto lenses, use an APS-C sensor.</li> </ul> </blockquote> <p>Sorry to be pedantic, but the issue is far from mute, since people still argue it all the time. You mean "moot".</p> <p>I must correct the common misconception that a smaller sensor somehow gives you longer telephoto lenses. It does not, since the sensor cannot change the lens at all. What it does instead is produce a resulting image as if you had taken a centre crop of a larger sensor. The rest of the information delivered by the lens is simply discarded.</p> <p><em>There is no image quality advantage whatsoever to shooting a smaller sensor.</em> (All else being equal of course.) Advantages are instead potential reduced cost and the smaller size of the resulting camera system. These are very real incentives for many people.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now