Is Ricoh serious about the Pentax’s future?

Alex Sarbu said:

moving_comfort said:

Alex Sarbu said:

moving_comfort said:

Alex Sarbu said:

Alex Sarbu said:

Alex Sarbu said:

Alex Sarbu said:

Part of what's allowing them (Fuji) to do that though is their MILC X-mount, which allows deeper mounting of the lens, closer to the sensor.

If Pentax wants to fully compete in MILC, they will need a new mount.

If they want K-mount to survive/thrive, they will need an FF product line.

Click to expand...

The K-mount cannot survive (much less thrive) without APS-C.

Click to expand...

It's not an either-or thing; a strengthened K-mount DSLR lineup that includes FF strengthens and enriches the aps-c products as well.

Click to expand...

Both are preferable, for sure; I'm just disagreeing with the assertion that it's FF, not APS-C which is necessary for survival.

Click to expand...

I never said that, did I? Nor was it implied.

Click to expand...

You said FF is necessary for survival.

Click to expand...

And I think it is necessary for K-mount's survival. You were trying to frame what I said as an "FF is more important than aps-c" argument, and that wasn't what I was saying.

Click to expand...

I wasn't, my apologies if it was worded poorly. I only disagree with the "FF necessary for survival" part (proof? Ricoh Imaging is profitable). But mere "survival" might be enough, so let's go to the second part.

Alex Sarbu said:

I'm saying (for the third time this thread) that if K-mount DSLR is to thrive or even survive, it needs an FF augmentation - because aps-c DSLR alone is not going to be enough, like it was in 2010.

Click to expand...

And we agree on the "thrive" part.

Alex Sarbu said:

Alex Sarbu said:

Alex Sarbu said:

Here's what I and others are saying: aps-c DSLR alone is unlikely to ever see the same sales numbers it did in 2010. There are two viable, attractive alternatives now for the same customers: MILC, and entry-FF.

Click to expand...

How about Pentax' APS-C? I'm hearing the K-3 is doing pretty well...

Click to expand...

Compared to?

Click to expand...

Compared to the sales targets.

Alex Sarbu said:

.

Alex Sarbu said:

Alex Sarbu said:

Alex Sarbu said:

Alex Sarbu said:

We've reached the point where there's no longer a good excuse for delay. Some folks would say that point was early last year.

Click to expand...

By which standards? This is just impatience speaking, an impatience formed well before Ricoh took over.

Click to expand...

By the market standards.

Take a look at what other manufacturers have done while Pentax fiddled with Q and aps-c half-upgrades: $1600 - $2000 'entry' FF, Fuji, Olympus, Sony with their extremely compelling MILC (m43, aps-c and FF) products. Panasonic, Samsung, even Sigma are creating eye-catching new products.

Pentax is selling a Q, and a nice (but still out-of-reach) MFD product. They're letting their bread-butter mount atrophy.

Click to expand...

And, again, Pentax is beating Fuji with the Q. So, what market standards are we talking about?

Click to expand...

If the Q is beating the Fuji X-based MILC models, I'd love to see the numbers supporting that!

Click to expand...

Sure. Let's see BCNRanking's data for the Japanese MILC market share in 2013:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52797443

http://bcnranking.jp/news/1312/131227_27056.html (the original article, Japanese)

Alex Sarbu said:

Here's what I do see: pentax-q-sales-disappointing

Click to expand...

2012, when they were trying to sell Q at a high price. And on the UK market.

Alex Sarbu said:

Also, according to Amazon, Q is at # 38, after several Fuji X models.

Click to expand...

Perhaps on markets where MILCs don't sell that well the Fuji is ahead. Is it enough to compensate for them being beaten on the home market? I doubt it.

Alex Sarbu said:

But that's sort of beside the point anyway - 'Q' isn't the main line these MILC offerings endanger, aps-c DSLR is. 'Q' is just the appetizer the shark will eat on the way to the main course

Click to expand...

The APS-C DSLR is not endangered, and not all MILC makers are doing well. Don't believe in hype.

Alex

Click to expand...

Has Ricoh ever shared any financial performance data for their consumer camera business? Yes, there have been references to the financials for the much larger division that the camera business resides in but is that useful at all for the discussion?

Jim in Hudson said:

Alex Sarbu said:

moving_comfort said:

Alex Sarbu said:

moving_comfort said:

Jim in Hudson said:

Jim in Hudson said:

Jim in Hudson said:

Jim in Hudson said:

Part of what's allowing them (Fuji) to do that though is their MILC X-mount, which allows deeper mounting of the lens, closer to the sensor.

If Pentax wants to fully compete in MILC, they will need a new mount.

If they want K-mount to survive/thrive, they will need an FF product line.

Click to expand...

The K-mount cannot survive (much less thrive) without APS-C.

Click to expand...

It's not an either-or thing; a strengthened K-mount DSLR lineup that includes FF strengthens and enriches the aps-c products as well.

Click to expand...

Both are preferable, for sure; I'm just disagreeing with the assertion that it's FF, not APS-C which is necessary for survival.

Click to expand...

I never said that, did I? Nor was it implied.

Click to expand...

You said FF is necessary for survival.

Click to expand...

And I think it is necessary for K-mount's survival. You were trying to frame what I said as an "FF is more important than aps-c" argument, and that wasn't what I was saying.

Click to expand...

I wasn't, my apologies if it was worded poorly. I only disagree with the "FF necessary for survival" part (proof? Ricoh Imaging is profitable). But mere "survival" might be enough, so let's go to the second part.

Jim in Hudson said:

I'm saying (for the third time this thread) that if K-mount DSLR is to thrive or even survive, it needs an FF augmentation - because aps-c DSLR alone is not going to be enough, like it was in 2010.

Click to expand...

And we agree on the "thrive" part.

Jim in Hudson said:

Jim in Hudson said:

Jim in Hudson said:

Here's what I and others are saying: aps-c DSLR alone is unlikely to ever see the same sales numbers it did in 2010. There are two viable, attractive alternatives now for the same customers: MILC, and entry-FF.

Click to expand...

How about Pentax' APS-C? I'm hearing the K-3 is doing pretty well...

Click to expand...

Compared to?

Click to expand...

Compared to the sales targets.

Jim in Hudson said:

.

Jim in Hudson said:

Jim in Hudson said:

Jim in Hudson said:

Jim in Hudson said:

We've reached the point where there's no longer a good excuse for delay. Some folks would say that point was early last year.

Click to expand...

By which standards? This is just impatience speaking, an impatience formed well before Ricoh took over.

Click to expand...

By the market standards.

Take a look at what other manufacturers have done while Pentax fiddled with Q and aps-c half-upgrades: $1600 - $2000 'entry' FF, Fuji, Olympus, Sony with their extremely compelling MILC (m43, aps-c and FF) products. Panasonic, Samsung, even Sigma are creating eye-catching new products.

Pentax is selling a Q, and a nice (but still out-of-reach) MFD product. They're letting their bread-butter mount atrophy.

Click to expand...

And, again, Pentax is beating Fuji with the Q. So, what market standards are we talking about?

Click to expand...

If the Q is beating the Fuji X-based MILC models, I'd love to see the numbers supporting that!

Click to expand...

Sure. Let's see BCNRanking's data for the Japanese MILC market share in 2013:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52797443

http://bcnranking.jp/news/1312/131227_27056.html (the original article, Japanese)

Jim in Hudson said:

Here's what I do see: pentax-q-sales-disappointing

Click to expand...

2012, when they were trying to sell Q at a high price. And on the UK market.

Jim in Hudson said:

Also, according to Amazon, Q is at # 38, after several Fuji X models.

Click to expand...

Perhaps on markets where MILCs don't sell that well the Fuji is ahead. Is it enough to compensate for them being beaten on the home market? I doubt it.

Jim in Hudson said:

But that's sort of beside the point anyway - 'Q' isn't the main line these MILC offerings endanger, aps-c DSLR is. 'Q' is just the appetizer the shark will eat on the way to the main course

Click to expand...

The APS-C DSLR is not endangered, and not all MILC makers are doing well. Don't believe in hype.

Alex

Click to expand...

Has Ricoh ever shared any financial performance data for their consumer camera business? Yes, there have been references to the financials for the much larger division that the camera business resides in but is that useful at all for the discussion?

Click to expand...

No, they didn't publish data on Ricoh Imaging only, but they said the consumer camera business is profitable.

Alex

Alex Sarbu said:

Jim in Hudson said:

Has Ricoh ever shared any financial performance data for their consumer camera business? Yes, there have been references to the financials for the much larger division that the camera business resides in but is that useful at all for the discussion?

Click to expand...

No, they didn't publish data on Ricoh Imaging only, but they said the consumer camera business is profitable.

Alex

Click to expand...

My recollection, right or wrong, was they claimed the profitability of the camera business improved. They never indicated whether that meant "more positive" or "less negative". Anyone remember the specifics?

Alex Sarbu said:

Alex Sarbu said:

Has Ricoh ever shared any financial performance data for their consumer camera business? Yes, there have been references to the financials for the much larger division that the camera business resides in but is that useful at all for the discussion?

Click to expand...

No, they didn't publish data on Ricoh Imaging only, but they said the consumer camera business is profitable.

Alex

Click to expand...

In accounting terms, any serious investment in double digit million amounts would make the balance negative and Ricoh Imaging would show loss. That is the case with Fujifilm now, as they still don't show profit because the investment in the new system was significant.

Strategically speaking, Ricoh Imaging would like to show they are solid company that makes no loss in all its departments. That accounting fact made into a marketing slogan actually means no serious investment in other than crucial infrastructure (which in not Imaging group) is allowed. Only small steps forward are allowed, and Pentax development must use operating capital alone. All major distributors (including RIAC) must find a way to do the same: develop slowly using whatever they have now, because neither help nor investment will be provided to them. For example, RIAC still uses a third party webstore: they were not provided even with a new one they can fully manage. Does it cost a lot? Not at all. But they are not getting it.

That is why it takes them forever to move from one point to an other, and that is why they are not investing in a lens system as it really deserves, but leave it for users to scratch their heads about it. Qwntm, then Chris Mak were perfectly succinct above and explained why Pentax is indeed falling behind even in the APS-C terms: not because of one nice camera, but because of the lenses.

All because there is no significant investment. And there is no investment only to show the big company is profitable. But that short term profitability is very risky, as it holds Pentax brand back from the serious investment in the future. In 2 years time, Fujifilm will have the best and most complete APS-C system in the world and will become profitable. Pentax won't have anything similar and may even suffer the loss of market share.

Ricoh has taken a very dangerous road for the sake of outer appearance.

And let us not pretend it is not the case, that there is another "explanation".

--
Madamina, il catalogo è questo; Delle belle che amò il padron mio; un catalogo egli è che ho fatt'io; Osservate, leggete con me.

asahi man said:

asahi man said:

Madamina, il catalogo è questo; Delle belle che amò il padron mio; un catalogo egli è che ho fatt'io; Osservate, leggete con me.

Click to expand...

What for lenses do you mean?

Give it by the name.

I talked about the Big One,it is the 560.

Click to expand...

We all knew 560 was coming before the 2012 Photokina. I was writing about the lenses you mentioned since then: none of them came out in the last 2 years. You mentioned 1xx-4xx zoom long ago, then 2x-1xx zoom, 70-200, etc. Two years after the Photokina, where are they?

asahi man said:

I told you that the speculation about the converter is a truth and the picture what everybody told it is fake,is real and it was real.

Click to expand...

Yes, we all knew TC will come, because it was charted 7 years ago. You have seen it, and said it will come. Finally it came out.

asahi man said:

What is your problem?

Click to expand...

Not mine. I just pointed out that it would be good if you don't post rumors in this forum, like you did just days ago, buy stating there will be no FF this Photokina, only new Q and perhaps some lenses.

I wrote that it is NOT in the best interest of Pentax that some users in the forum post such posts because it is damaging the brand. Many were disturbed by your "news". So please be mindful.

asahi man said:

It is disstime?

Take a last talk with me after Photokina ;-)

Click to expand...

Photokina may prove you wrong, like it happened last September 5th, when your prognosis was totally wrong. How many people were disappointed then? For your own sake, please don't post any more hearsay because what you hear and know is not the fact Ricoh will act upon.

--
Madamina, il catalogo è questo; Delle belle che amò il padron mio; un catalogo egli è che ho fatt'io; Osservate, leggete con me.

Jim in Hudson said:

Alex Sarbu said:

Jim in Hudson said:

Has Ricoh ever shared any financial performance data for their consumer camera business? Yes, there have been references to the financials for the much larger division that the camera business resides in but is that useful at all for the discussion?

Click to expand...

No, they didn't publish data on Ricoh Imaging only, but they said the consumer camera business is profitable.

Alex

Click to expand...

My recollection, right or wrong, was they claimed the profitability of the camera business improved. They never indicated whether that meant "more positive" or "less negative". Anyone remember the specifics?

Click to expand...

You are correct, they're talking about improved profitability. Which means they're making a profit - there's no such thing as a "negative profitability", that's a loss.

Alex

Zvonimir Tosic said:

Alex Sarbu said:

Zvonimir Tosic said:

Has Ricoh ever shared any financial performance data for their consumer camera business? Yes, there have been references to the financials for the much larger division that the camera business resides in but is that useful at all for the discussion?

Click to expand...

No, they didn't publish data on Ricoh Imaging only, but they said the consumer camera business is profitable.

Alex

Click to expand...

In accounting terms, any serious investment in double digit million amounts would make the balance negative and Ricoh Imaging would show loss. That is the case with Fujifilm now, as they still don't show profit because the investment in the new system was significant.

Click to expand...

Blah blah blah. Fuji is nowhere to be seen in 2013 BCNRanking's top 20 MILCs. Ricoh Imaging made 7.8% with the Q.

Ricoh allocated the equivalent of 42 million USD for increasing the production capacity; that's besides things like R&D.

You're just making excuses to bash Ricoh Imaging and praise another camera maker.

Alex