Ricoh's camera business had decreased sales in 2014

[dpthoughts]

I don't understand what you're all on about - the accounts show a profit before tax of 115bn yen

Ricoh Corp is profitable as a whole, but the "Others" division (where Pentax belongs to) is currently making a loss (according financial reports for 2014), dragging down the profit of the entire Ricoh Corp.

This puts the Pentax operations at risk, because a board of directors are acting on behalf on the Ricoh investors, which don't like to drain their money in a sink hole in the long run. Sooner or later, the directors will have to pull the plug in one way or the other.

The risk is not yet dangerous today, because the Pentax department leaders may still make the directors believe, that the full frame will become a financial success. However, I don't believe so. There's no relevant market for it. It seems that only a small handful users (fanboys as well of course) in a few forums were shouting for it, so that they can use their old analogue-ear glass. Once this small group is satisfied, no-one else in the market will be interested in a Pentax full-frame demand will break down. Most APS-C users selected APS-C for a reason: To save them from bulk, weight, and costs. All these motivations don't go away suddenly with the arrival of a full frame, as it didn't go away with the arrival of a medium format.

Let's assume, that Pentax has a DSLR market share of 1% (outside Japan), and 1% of current Pentax APS-C users consider going full frame. Then it will have a market share of 0.01%.
Maybe only 0.1% of Pentaxians will be interested, as the majority just gets an entry level DSLR+Kit and wouldn't even consider buying an expensive APS-C-lens.

Then the Pentax full frame market share will be 0.001%.

Can that be profitable?

In terms of stuff they really need to start incorporating in their bodies I think predictive and face detect focus tracking and flash control

Yes, Pentax is still substandard in these things. The flash system and the autofocus are class trailing. This is also the reason, why APS-C Pentaxians still leave to other brands be it for a change to full frame, or for a stay within APS-C.

In build, handling, interface, value, lens quality then Pentax arguably have the advantage.

No, since the "made in Vietnam" era, the quality reputation got very bad and is still today. Even test sites make comments on the repeatedly poor quality of their samples, e.g. lenstip.com in their 70mm Limited test (or 77mm Limited, don't remember).

My personal experience backs that up.

The times where Pentax had an advantage in value-for-money were, when I decided to enter Pentax (2008 with the K20D).
Today, Pentax is too expensive. The K-3 II (even though second-class in important core qualities like AF-C) is as expensive than the Nikon D7200 (depending on the country. Currently the demand for the D7200 is much higher than the supply in some countries, so that many shops still can command RRP).

But more importantly, all Pentax lenses are overpriced (or just mediocre for the price they demand), when compared to Canon/Nikon.

The seeming success of Fuji X-T1 (and its lenses) demonstrates, that you can command high prices for your lenses, IF (and only if) you offer excellency (not mediocracy) for the money you are asking for. Having said this, the new Pentax 16-85 seems not too bad actually, but it is just one lens in a program of dozens. Maybe the 16-85 is a small light appearing at the end of a long tunnel? however, it is too late, such a lens should have been made years ago, when Canon/Nikon were doing their 16-85 lenses as well. And many other lenses should have followed in time. Now, a lonesome 16-85 cannot be the sole pilar of an entire, aged lens program.

Personally I'm not full of doom and gloom at all
I estimage, that the Ricoh Board of Directors will pull the plug in 2017, after they've seen that their Pentax brand managers promises regarding the FF profit contributions were a false hope.
[...]
class leading range from medium format down through DSLR to compact and gadget cameras
convince the retail trade to push their world beating range.

Currently, Pentax seem class-trailing (not -leading) in their DSLRs, and unfortunatly the retailers seems to know that as well as their customers do. Prosumers want a good AF-C-autofocus and a good Flash System. Preferably a class leading one, not a class trailing. Pentax overlooked this demand completely, instead they invested in fancy Gimmicks nobody was asking for.

Medium format is a special case. I think the time for pseudo medium format cameras such as the 645(Z) with only a small crop sensor (only just 20% wider than full frame) is over, now that 50 Megapixels have reached full frame sensors. And crop medium format cameras don't even offer the bokeh power of full frame, because there are no fast lenses for medium format. That system seems obsolete to me by now. Sales will plummet there, as well.

 

[Petroglyph]

I don't understand what you're all on about - the accounts show a profit before tax of 115bn yen

Ricoh Corp is profitable as a whole, but the "Others" division (where Pentax belongs to) is currently making a loss (according financial reports for 2014), dragging down the profit of the entire Ricoh Corp.

This puts the Pentax operations at risk, because a board of directors are acting on behalf on the Ricoh investors, which don't like to drain their money in a sink hole in the long run. Sooner or later, the directors will have to pull the plug in one way or the other.

I depends on the details. If the board thinks it is just, for instance, the K-S1 that caused the blip, then the decision maker that green lighted the K-S1 might be more at risk than the camera division as a whole. If the board thinks down trends in the camera industry will make owning a camera division a bad deal going forward, well you can assume what that means. They might also believe that a top camera brand in the hands of pros will lift their other divisions and is worth the effort to maintain.

The risk is not yet dangerous today, because the Pentax department leaders may still make the directors believe, that the full frame will become a financial success.

The board already believes in the aps/c market. They are doing the FF to reward the loyal Pentaxians and [their rep] said as much.

It seems that only a small handful users (fanboys as well of course) in a few forums were shouting for it, so that they can use their old analogue-ear glass.

Maybe if I got some of that ear glass I wouldn't feel I have to shout.

Let's assume, that Pentax has a DSLR market share of 1% (outside Japan), and 1% of current Pentax APS-C users consider going full frame. Then it will have a market share of 0.01%.
Maybe only 0.1% of Pentaxians will be interested, as the majority just gets an entry level DSLR+Kit and wouldn't even consider buying an expensive APS-C-lens.

Then the Pentax full frame market share will be 0.001%.

Can that be profitable?

This is failed logic since the fact all companies sell a much lower percent of FF than other types has been omitted.

In terms of stuff they really need to start incorporating in their bodies I think predictive and face detect focus tracking and flash control

Yes, Pentax is still substandard in these things. The flash system and the autofocus are class trailing.

'class' usually refers to a type of camera rather than a brand. Sort of a normalization of comparison.

This is also the reason, why APS-C Pentaxians still leave to other brands be it for a change to full frame, or for a stay within APS-C.

In build, handling, interface, value, lens quality then Pentax arguably have the advantage.

The seeming success of Fuji X-T1 (and its lenses) demonstrates, that you can command high prices for your lenses, IF (and only if) you offer excellency (not mediocracy) for the money you are asking for.

seeming excellency (sic) does tend to result from seeming success.

Personally I'm not full of doom and gloom at all
I estimage, that the Ricoh Board of Directors will pull the plug in 2017, after they've seen that their Pentax brand managers promises regarding the FF profit contributions were a false hope.
[...]
class leading range from medium format down through DSLR to compact and gadget cameras
convince the retail trade to push their world beating range.

Medium format is a special case. I think the time for pseudo medium format cameras such as the 645(Z) with only a small crop sensor (only just 20% wider than full frame) is over, now that 50 Megapixels have reached full frame sensors. And crop medium format cameras don't even offer the bokeh power of full frame,

bokeh power to the people!

because there are no fast lenses for medium format. That system seems obsolete to me by now. Sales will plummet there, as well.

The format will probably get an 80MP 48X36 in the 645ZII. Who's got bokeh then?

 

[Alex Sarbu]

I don't understand what you're all on about - the accounts show a profit before tax of 115bn yen

Ricoh Corp is profitable as a whole, but the "Others" division (where Pentax belongs to) is currently making a loss (according financial reports for 2014), dragging down the profit of the entire Ricoh Corp.

This puts the Pentax operations at risk, because a board of directors are acting on behalf on the Ricoh investors, which don't like to drain their money in a sink hole in the long run. Sooner or later, the directors will have to pull the plug in one way or the other.

I disagree with the assessment.

Let's go back in 2010-2011, when Ricoh had their small, money losing camera division. Did they close it? Far from it; instead, they had gone as far as buying another, larger camera division (Pentax Imaging Systems Business) in order to turn it around.

And if Ricoh is willing to invest with a long-term goal in mind, they're also willing to wait for the returns. We're barely at the beginning.

The risk is not yet dangerous today, because the Pentax department leaders may still make the directors believe, that the full frame will become a financial success. However, I don't believe so. There's no relevant market for it. It seems that only a small handful users (fanboys as well of course) in a few forums were shouting for it, so that they can use their old analogue-ear glass. Once this small group is satisfied, no-one else in the market will be interested in a Pentax full-frame demand will break down. Most APS-C users selected APS-C for a reason: To save them from bulk, weight, and costs. All these motivations don't go away suddenly with the arrival of a full frame, as it didn't go away with the arrival of a medium format.

Let's assume, that Pentax has a DSLR market share of 1% (outside Japan), and 1% of current Pentax APS-C users consider going full frame. Then it will have a market share of 0.01%.
Maybe only 0.1% of Pentaxians will be interested, as the majority just gets an entry level DSLR+Kit and wouldn't even consider buying an expensive APS-C-lens.

Then the Pentax full frame market share will be 0.001%.

Can that be profitable?

I would not assume (which somehow is supposed to work only against Pentax/Ricoh), but rather wait and see the real sales. And those have to be compared with their expectations.

The 645z was also (and probably still is) considered a "failure". Yet, the demand is almost double the initial estimations.

In terms of stuff they really need to start incorporating in their bodies I think predictive and face detect focus tracking and flash control

Yes, Pentax is still substandard in these things. The flash system and the autofocus are class trailing. This is also the reason, why APS-C Pentaxians still leave to other brands be it for a change to full frame, or for a stay within APS-C.

I'm not so sure about that.

Note that only recently they have both cameras and lenses made for fast focusing.

In build, handling, interface, value, lens quality then Pentax arguably have the advantage.

No, since the "made in Vietnam" era, the quality reputation got very bad and is still today. Even test sites make comments on the repeatedly poor quality of their samples, e.g. lenstip.com in their 70mm Limited test (or 77mm Limited, don't remember).

My personal experience backs that up.

My personal experience says otherwise.

The times where Pentax had an advantage in value-for-money were, when I decided to enter Pentax (2008 with the K20D).
Today, Pentax is too expensive. The K-3 II (even though second-class in important core qualities like AF-C) is as expensive than the Nikon D7200 (depending on the country. Currently the demand for the D7200 is much higher than the supply in some countries, so that many shops still can command RRP).

I could have bought the K-3II for about $890. I didn't, because I'm waiting for the more expensive camera. "Too expensive" is relative.

And I'm quite sure you never tested the K-3II's "second-class AF-C". Perhaps you're still talking about your K20D?

But more importantly, all Pentax lenses are overpriced (or just mediocre for the price they demand), when compared to Canon/Nikon.

Nonsense.

The seeming success of Fuji X-T1 (and its lenses) demonstrates, that you can command high prices for your lenses, IF (and only if) you offer excellency (not mediocracy) for the money you are asking for. Having said this, the new Pentax 16-85 seems not too bad actually, but it is just one lens in a program of dozens. Maybe the 16-85 is a small light appearing at the end of a long tunnel? however, it is too late, such a lens should have been made years ago, when Canon/Nikon were doing their 16-85 lenses as well. And many other lenses should have followed in time. Now, a lonesome 16-85 cannot be the sole pilar of an entire, aged lens program.

Oh, someone mentioned Fuji... let me say my favorite phrase: in Japan, Pentax is beating Fuji with the Q.

Personally I'm not full of doom and gloom at all
I estimage, that the Ricoh Board of Directors will pull the plug in 2017, after they've seen that their Pentax brand managers promises regarding the FF profit contributions were a false hope.
[...]
class leading range from medium format down through DSLR to compact and gadget cameras
convince the retail trade to push their world beating range.

Currently, Pentax seem class-trailing (not -leading) in their DSLRs, and unfortunatly the retailers seems to know that as well as their customers do. Prosumers want a good AF-C-autofocus and a good Flash System. Preferably a class leading one, not a class trailing. Pentax overlooked this demand completely, instead they invested in fancy Gimmicks nobody was asking for.

Medium format is a special case. I think the time for pseudo medium format cameras such as the 645(Z) with only a small crop sensor (only just 20% wider than full frame) is over, now that 50 Megapixels have reached full frame sensors. And crop medium format cameras don't even offer the bokeh power of full frame, because there are no fast lenses for medium format. That system seems obsolete to me by now. Sales will plummet there, as well.

Nonsense. I saw well-made medium format prints; compared with that, words like "bokeh power" don't mean anything.

And - again - the demand for the 645z is about double the initial estimation. That camera is creating demand, because it's very good and very affordable for DMF standards.

Alex

 

[rwl408]

And - again - the demand for the 645z is about double the initial estimation. That camera is creating demand, because it's very good and very affordable for DMF standards.

But I am afraid that 645z's days are numbered now that 5DS/R has arrived. Canon's lens system and AF are just too much for 645z to match.

 

[Alex Sarbu]

And - again - the demand for the 645z is about double the initial estimation. That camera is creating demand, because it's very good and very affordable for DMF standards.

But I am afraid that 645z's days are numbered now that 5DS/R has arrived. Canon's lens system and AF are just too much for 645z to match.

Be afraid, if that's what you want. In the mean time, Pentax/Ricoh is struggling to keep up with the demand.

P.S. Medium format was supposed to be destroyed by the 36MP FF sensors, few years ago

Alex

 

[Holger Bargen]

I don't understand what you're all on about - the accounts show a profit before tax of 115bn yen

Ricoh Corp is profitable as a whole, but the "Others" division (where Pentax belongs to) is currently making a loss (according financial reports for 2014), dragging down the profit of the entire Ricoh Corp.

This puts the Pentax operations at risk, because a board of directors are acting on behalf on the Ricoh investors, which don't like to drain their money in a sink hole in the long run. Sooner or later, the directors will have to pull the plug in one way or the other.

The risk is not yet dangerous today, because the Pentax department leaders may still make the directors believe, that the full frame will become a financial success. However, I don't believe so. There's no relevant market for it. It seems that only a small handful users (fanboys as well of course) in a few forums were shouting for it, so that they can use their old analogue-ear glass. Once this small group is satisfied, no-one else in the market will be interested in a Pentax full-frame demand will break down. Most APS-C users selected APS-C for a reason: To save them from bulk, weight, and costs. All these motivations don't go away suddenly with the arrival of a full frame, as it didn't go away with the arrival of a medium format.

Let's assume, that Pentax has a DSLR market share of 1% (outside Japan), and 1% of current Pentax APS-C users consider going full frame. Then it will have a market share of 0.01%.
Maybe only 0.1% of Pentaxians will be interested, as the majority just gets an entry level DSLR+Kit and wouldn't even consider buying an expensive APS-C-lens.

Then the Pentax full frame market share will be 0.001%.

Can that be profitable?

In terms of stuff they really need to start incorporating in their bodies I think predictive and face detect focus tracking and flash control

Yes, Pentax is still substandard in these things. The flash system and the autofocus are class trailing. This is also the reason, why APS-C Pentaxians still leave to other brands be it for a change to full frame, or for a stay within APS-C.

It depends on what you want. The precision of the Pentax AF is much better than that of most other companies. They have a micro-adjustment others do not have (do not know if this is still true - it was the state from a couple of years). Pentax AF-system maybe slow (it became much better since K3 and all other cameras that followed) - but it is very precise.

In build, handling, interface, value, lens quality then Pentax arguably have the advantage.

No, since the "made in Vietnam" era, the quality reputation got very bad and is still today. Even test sites make comments on the repeatedly poor quality of their samples, e.g. lenstip.com in their 70mm Limited test (or 77mm Limited, don't remember).

Yes, this is true - but unfortunately it is true for all other brands, too. It's one reason why I prefer old lenses. They are solid build and AF has no meaning for me.

The reason why Pentax lenses may be bad in some reviews become visible for me a few years ago: A German computer magazine wanted to test DSLR systems and lenses. They asked the different brands for a sample for testing - all other companies gave them one (and do you expect they will have given one right out of production? I would expect that it is at least tested and tweaked to its optimum). Pentax did not give them a sample. They told them that they could buy one everywhere - they bought one and tested a lemon.

Users come to a different opinion

Sample images with EXIF data and Lightroom edits · PixelPeeper

Sample images with complete EXIF data and Lightroom edits. Click on any of them to view camera settings, edits and download them as Lightroom presets.

de.pixelpeeper.com

Are Pentax lenses that bad?

And regarding the camera bodies I did not find any problems with the quality so far.

My personal experience backs that up.

The times where Pentax had an advantage in value-for-money were, when I decided to enter Pentax (2008 with the K20D).
Today, Pentax is too expensive. The K-3 II (even though second-class in important core qualities like AF-C) is as expensive than the Nikon D7200 (depending on the country. Currently the demand for the D7200 is much higher than the supply in some countries, so that many shops still can command RRP).

But more importantly, all Pentax lenses are overpriced (or just mediocre for the price they demand), when compared to Canon/Nikon.

The image of Pentax cameras and lenses for many years: Very versatile user-oütimized camera systems for less money than Cannikon - technically of same or nearly same level (for camera bodies and same or better regarding the lenses.

This changed dramatically when Hoya bought the company.

If you look at the prices today - yes, they are higher than they should be - a lot of people just buy Sigma or Tamron together with the Pentax body - they get the same for often a few 100 EUR less.

But we also should take into consideration weather sealing as a factor that makes lenses expensive.

The seeming success of Fuji X-T1 (and its lenses) demonstrates, that you can command high prices for your lenses, IF (and only if) you offer excellency (not mediocracy) for the money you are asking for. Having said this, the new Pentax 16-85 seems not too bad actually, but it is just one lens in a program of dozens. Maybe the 16-85 is a small light appearing at the end of a long tunnel? however, it is too late, such a lens should have been made years ago, when Canon/Nikon were doing their 16-85 lenses as well. And many other lenses should have followed in time. Now, a lonesome 16-85 cannot be the sole pilar of an entire, aged lens program.

Personally I'm not full of doom and gloom at all
I estimage, that the Ricoh Board of Directors will pull the plug in 2017, after they've seen that their Pentax brand managers promises regarding the FF profit contributions were a false hope.
[...]
class leading range from medium format down through DSLR to compact and gadget cameras
convince the retail trade to push their world beating range.

Currently, Pentax seem class-trailing (not -leading) in their DSLRs, and unfortunatly the retailers seems to know that as well as their customers do. Prosumers want a good AF-C-autofocus and a good Flash System.

The AF system is overrated in my eyes - it's good for special disciplines of photography - but not for all. And the importance of the flash system is going down in time of good LED technology.

Preferably a class leading one, not a class trailing. Pentax overlooked this demand completely, instead they invested in fancy Gimmicks nobody was asking for.

Nobody likes weather sealing? Nobody like in-camera stabilisation? Nobody likes to get rid of the AA filter for higher IQ? What you call "gimmicks" are those things that are the reason why we still can buy Pentax cameras! Pentax always build cameras for users and not for technique nerds. When the CANNIKON photographers are trying to find their optimal settings the Pentax photographers are already shooting. The TAV-mode - which other brand offers it - and everybody who has used a Pentax camera knows the advantage of it.

So, things are not that black as you were painting it. It's a hard market and Pentax has still to recover from the Hoya years.

They should go on with their concepts of introducing meaningful innovations. They should try to improve the build quality of their lenses. And they should get a little bit more clever with marketing - and if possible; reduce prices.

Medium format is a special case. I think the time for pseudo medium format cameras such as the 645(Z) with only a small crop sensor (only just 20% wider than full frame) is over, now that 50 Megapixels have reached full frame sensors. And crop medium format cameras don't even offer the bokeh power of full frame, because there are no fast lenses for medium format. That system seems obsolete to me by now. Sales will plummet there, as well.

Tell me one FF camera that comes close to the quality of the colours of the 645z. Sigma - maybe - but CANNIKON ,,,

Bokeh is the way not sharp regions in a photo is displayed. The Pentax lenses with their rounded blades and high optical quality are most of the time outstanding regarding bokeh.

What you are talking about is DOF - and here we may have FF lenses with f=1.2 that offer a little bit more swallow DOF - but don't ask about the contrast at this opening. I do not know many photographers that need a DOF of a few millimetres - I would not call these lenses "toys for nerds" - but you can easily live without them.

 

[p1726]

I don't understand what you're all on about - the accounts show a profit before tax of 115bn yen

Ricoh Corp is profitable as a whole, but the "Others" division (where Pentax belongs to) is currently making a loss (according financial reports for 2014), dragging down the profit of the entire Ricoh Corp.

This puts the Pentax operations at risk, because a board of directors are acting on behalf on the Ricoh investors, which don't like to drain their money in a sink hole in the long run. Sooner or later, the directors will have to pull the plug in one way or the other.

The risk is not yet dangerous today, because the Pentax department leaders may still make the directors believe, that the full frame will become a financial success. However, I don't believe so. There's no relevant market for it. It seems that only a small handful users (fanboys as well of course) in a few forums were shouting for it, so that they can use their old analogue-ear glass. Once this small group is satisfied, no-one else in the market will be interested in a Pentax full-frame demand will break down. Most APS-C users selected APS-C for a reason: To save them from bulk, weight, and costs. All these motivations don't go away suddenly with the arrival of a full frame, as it didn't go away with the arrival of a medium format.

Let's assume, that Pentax has a DSLR market share of 1% (outside Japan), and 1% of current Pentax APS-C users consider going full frame. Then it will have a market share of 0.01%.
Maybe only 0.1% of Pentaxians will be interested, as the majority just gets an entry level DSLR+Kit and wouldn't even consider buying an expensive APS-C-lens.

Then the Pentax full frame market share will be 0.001%.

Can that be profitable?

In terms of stuff they really need to start incorporating in their bodies I think predictive and face detect focus tracking and flash control

Yes, Pentax is still substandard in these things. The flash system and the autofocus are class trailing. This is also the reason, why APS-C Pentaxians still leave to other brands be it for a change to full frame, or for a stay within APS-C.

It depends on what you want. The precision of the Pentax AF is much better than that of most other companies. They have a micro-adjustment others do not have (do not know if this is still true - it was the state from a couple of years). Pentax AF-system maybe slow (it became much better since K3 and all other cameras that followed) - but it is very precise.

In build, handling, interface, value, lens quality then Pentax arguably have the advantage.

No, since the "made in Vietnam" era, the quality reputation got very bad and is still today. Even test sites make comments on the repeatedly poor quality of their samples, e.g. lenstip.com in their 70mm Limited test (or 77mm Limited, don't remember).

Yes, this is true - but unfortunately it is true for all other brands, too. It's one reason why I prefer old lenses. They are solid build and AF has no meaning for me.

The reason why Pentax lenses may be bad in some reviews become visible for me a few years ago: A German computer magazine wanted to test DSLR systems and lenses. They asked the different brands for a sample for testing - all other companies gave them one (and do you expect they will have given one right out of production? I would expect that it is at least tested and tweaked to its optimum). Pentax did not give them a sample. They told them that they could buy one everywhere - they bought one and tested a lemon.

Users come to a different opinion

http://de.pixelpeeper.com/lenses/

Are Pentax lenses that bad?

And regarding the camera bodies I did not find any problems with the quality so far.

My personal experience backs that up.

The times where Pentax had an advantage in value-for-money were, when I decided to enter Pentax (2008 with the K20D).
Today, Pentax is too expensive. The K-3 II (even though second-class in important core qualities like AF-C) is as expensive than the Nikon D7200 (depending on the country. Currently the demand for the D7200 is much higher than the supply in some countries, so that many shops still can command RRP).

But more importantly, all Pentax lenses are overpriced (or just mediocre for the price they demand), when compared to Canon/Nikon.

The image of Pentax cameras and lenses for many years: Very versatile user-oütimized camera systems for less money than Cannikon - technically of same or nearly same level (for camera bodies and same or better regarding the lenses.

This changed dramatically when Hoya bought the company.

If you look at the prices today - yes, they are higher than they should be - a lot of people just buy Sigma or Tamron together with the Pentax body - they get the same for often a few 100 EUR less.

But we also should take into consideration weather sealing as a factor that makes lenses expensive.

If they make the kit les WR then weather sealing can't be that expensive. It's probably nothing compared to the price of the exotic glass elements inside.

The seeming success of Fuji X-T1 (and its lenses) demonstrates, that you can command high prices for your lenses, IF (and only if) you offer excellency (not mediocracy) for the money you are asking for. Having said this, the new Pentax 16-85 seems not too bad actually, but it is just one lens in a program of dozens. Maybe the 16-85 is a small light appearing at the end of a long tunnel? however, it is too late, such a lens should have been made years ago, when Canon/Nikon were doing their 16-85 lenses as well. And many other lenses should have followed in time. Now, a lonesome 16-85 cannot be the sole pilar of an entire, aged lens program.

Personally I'm not full of doom and gloom at all
I estimage, that the Ricoh Board of Directors will pull the plug in 2017, after they've seen that their Pentax brand managers promises regarding the FF profit contributions were a false hope.
[...]
class leading range from medium format down through DSLR to compact and gadget cameras
convince the retail trade to push their world beating range.

Currently, Pentax seem class-trailing (not -leading) in their DSLRs, and unfortunatly the retailers seems to know that as well as their customers do. Prosumers want a good AF-C-autofocus and a good Flash System.

The AF system is overrated in my eyes - it's good for special disciplines of photography - but not for all. And the importance of the flash system is going down in time of good LED technology.

Preferably a class leading one, not a class trailing. Pentax overlooked this demand completely, instead they invested in fancy Gimmicks nobody was asking for.

Nobody likes weather sealing? Nobody like in-camera stabilisation? Nobody likes to get rid of the AA filter for higher IQ? What you call "gimmicks" are those things that are the reason why we still can buy Pentax cameras!

Pentax always build cameras for users and not for technique nerds.

Users take pictures with their iphones

Tech nerds like me like suff like weather sealing, obscure astro tracer devices, moving sensors, pixel shift, horizon correction, enabling screw drive on dead SDM lenses and so on.

The TAV-mode - which other brand offers it - and everybody who has used a Pentax camera knows the advantage of it.

Other brands have it as well .. it's just not labeled as TAV but is M mode + ISO set to "auto".

Then on some you can set minimum shutter speed in addition and just shoot in Av which makes

TAV mode kind of redundant.

So, things are not that black as you were painting it. It's a hard market and Pentax has still to recover from the Hoya years.

Why is everyone so negative about Hoya?

Ricoh by now owns Pentax for as long as Hoya did. If I check what cameras and lenses were released under Hoya and then what was released by Ricoh untl now (and there's a lot of Hoya era tech in the earlier Ricoh releases) I woud say - Hoya did a better job overall.

 

[Alex Sarbu]

I don't understand what you're all on about - the accounts show a profit before tax of 115bn yen

Ricoh Corp is profitable as a whole, but the "Others" division (where Pentax belongs to) is currently making a loss (according financial reports for 2014), dragging down the profit of the entire Ricoh Corp.

This puts the Pentax operations at risk, because a board of directors are acting on behalf on the Ricoh investors, which don't like to drain their money in a sink hole in the long run. Sooner or later, the directors will have to pull the plug in one way or the other.

The risk is not yet dangerous today, because the Pentax department leaders may still make the directors believe, that the full frame will become a financial success. However, I don't believe so. There's no relevant market for it. It seems that only a small handful users (fanboys as well of course) in a few forums were shouting for it, so that they can use their old analogue-ear glass. Once this small group is satisfied, no-one else in the market will be interested in a Pentax full-frame demand will break down. Most APS-C users selected APS-C for a reason: To save them from bulk, weight, and costs. All these motivations don't go away suddenly with the arrival of a full frame, as it didn't go away with the arrival of a medium format.

Let's assume, that Pentax has a DSLR market share of 1% (outside Japan), and 1% of current Pentax APS-C users consider going full frame. Then it will have a market share of 0.01%.
Maybe only 0.1% of Pentaxians will be interested, as the majority just gets an entry level DSLR+Kit and wouldn't even consider buying an expensive APS-C-lens.

Then the Pentax full frame market share will be 0.001%.

Can that be profitable?

In terms of stuff they really need to start incorporating in their bodies I think predictive and face detect focus tracking and flash control

Yes, Pentax is still substandard in these things. The flash system and the autofocus are class trailing. This is also the reason, why APS-C Pentaxians still leave to other brands be it for a change to full frame, or for a stay within APS-C.

It depends on what you want. The precision of the Pentax AF is much better than that of most other companies. They have a micro-adjustment others do not have (do not know if this is still true - it was the state from a couple of years). Pentax AF-system maybe slow (it became much better since K3 and all other cameras that followed) - but it is very precise.

In build, handling, interface, value, lens quality then Pentax arguably have the advantage.

No, since the "made in Vietnam" era, the quality reputation got very bad and is still today. Even test sites make comments on the repeatedly poor quality of their samples, e.g. lenstip.com in their 70mm Limited test (or 77mm Limited, don't remember).

Yes, this is true - but unfortunately it is true for all other brands, too. It's one reason why I prefer old lenses. They are solid build and AF has no meaning for me.

The reason why Pentax lenses may be bad in some reviews become visible for me a few years ago: A German computer magazine wanted to test DSLR systems and lenses. They asked the different brands for a sample for testing - all other companies gave them one (and do you expect they will have given one right out of production? I would expect that it is at least tested and tweaked to its optimum). Pentax did not give them a sample. They told them that they could buy one everywhere - they bought one and tested a lemon.

Users come to a different opinion

http://de.pixelpeeper.com/lenses/

Are Pentax lenses that bad?

And regarding the camera bodies I did not find any problems with the quality so far.

My personal experience backs that up.

The times where Pentax had an advantage in value-for-money were, when I decided to enter Pentax (2008 with the K20D).
Today, Pentax is too expensive. The K-3 II (even though second-class in important core qualities like AF-C) is as expensive than the Nikon D7200 (depending on the country. Currently the demand for the D7200 is much higher than the supply in some countries, so that many shops still can command RRP).

But more importantly, all Pentax lenses are overpriced (or just mediocre for the price they demand), when compared to Canon/Nikon.

The image of Pentax cameras and lenses for many years: Very versatile user-oütimized camera systems for less money than Cannikon - technically of same or nearly same level (for camera bodies and same or better regarding the lenses.

This changed dramatically when Hoya bought the company.

If you look at the prices today - yes, they are higher than they should be - a lot of people just buy Sigma or Tamron together with the Pentax body - they get the same for often a few 100 EUR less.

But we also should take into consideration weather sealing as a factor that makes lenses expensive.

If they make the kit les WR then weather sealing can't be that expensive. It's probably nothing compared to the price of the exotic glass elements inside.

The seeming success of Fuji X-T1 (and its lenses) demonstrates, that you can command high prices for your lenses, IF (and only if) you offer excellency (not mediocracy) for the money you are asking for. Having said this, the new Pentax 16-85 seems not too bad actually, but it is just one lens in a program of dozens. Maybe the 16-85 is a small light appearing at the end of a long tunnel? however, it is too late, such a lens should have been made years ago, when Canon/Nikon were doing their 16-85 lenses as well. And many other lenses should have followed in time. Now, a lonesome 16-85 cannot be the sole pilar of an entire, aged lens program.

Personally I'm not full of doom and gloom at all
I estimage, that the Ricoh Board of Directors will pull the plug in 2017, after they've seen that their Pentax brand managers promises regarding the FF profit contributions were a false hope.
[...]
class leading range from medium format down through DSLR to compact and gadget cameras
convince the retail trade to push their world beating range.

Currently, Pentax seem class-trailing (not -leading) in their DSLRs, and unfortunatly the retailers seems to know that as well as their customers do. Prosumers want a good AF-C-autofocus and a good Flash System.

The AF system is overrated in my eyes - it's good for special disciplines of photography - but not for all. And the importance of the flash system is going down in time of good LED technology.

Preferably a class leading one, not a class trailing. Pentax overlooked this demand completely, instead they invested in fancy Gimmicks nobody was asking for.

Nobody likes weather sealing? Nobody like in-camera stabilisation? Nobody likes to get rid of the AA filter for higher IQ? What you call "gimmicks" are those things that are the reason why we still can buy Pentax cameras!

Pentax always build cameras for users and not for technique nerds.

Users take pictures with their iphones

Tech nerds like me like suff like weather sealing, obscure astro tracer devices, moving sensors, pixel shift, horizon correction, enabling screw drive on dead SDM lenses and so on.

The TAV-mode - which other brand offers it - and everybody who has used a Pentax camera knows the advantage of it.

Other brands have it as well .. it's just not labeled as TAV but is M mode + ISO set to "auto".

Then on some you can set minimum shutter speed in addition and just shoot in Av which makes

TAV mode kind of redundant.

So, things are not that black as you were painting it. It's a hard market and Pentax has still to recover from the Hoya years.

Why is everyone so negative about Hoya?

- how they took over Pentax (working together with SPARX)

- what they did to it (cost cutting, cost cutting and more cost cutting).

The sad part is that Hoya didn't want nor care about the Imaging Systems part of Pentax.

Ricoh by now owns Pentax for as long as Hoya did. If I check what cameras and lenses were released under Hoya and then what was released by Ricoh untl now (and there's a lot of Hoya era tech in the earlier Ricoh releases) I woud say - Hoya did a better job overall.

It will be "as long as Hoya" in the beginning of 2016, but Hoya&SPARX started to impact Pentax before that.

A more significant difference is what each company took over to. Hoya had a Pentax which just launched the amazing K10D and were preparing an entire series of new lenses. Ricoh OTOH took a "shadow of their former selves" Pentax, weakened by too much cost cutting.

In other words, the "better job" of Hoya was to let Pentax launch the lenses which were already planned. After that, they cut down on development - you can see that Pentax launched fewer and fewer lenses, stopping altogether (with K-mount) in 2011.

Ricoh is doing the opposite, they're starting from almost standstill and now they're announcing an entire line of products (K-mount FF).

Alex

 

[Holger Bargen]

I don't understand what you're all on about - the accounts show a profit before tax of 115bn yen

Ricoh Corp is profitable as a whole, but the "Others" division (where Pentax belongs to) is currently making a loss (according financial reports for 2014), dragging down the profit of the entire Ricoh Corp.

This puts the Pentax operations at risk, because a board of directors are acting on behalf on the Ricoh investors, which don't like to drain their money in a sink hole in the long run. Sooner or later, the directors will have to pull the plug in one way or the other.

The risk is not yet dangerous today, because the Pentax department leaders may still make the directors believe, that the full frame will become a financial success. However, I don't believe so. There's no relevant market for it. It seems that only a small handful users (fanboys as well of course) in a few forums were shouting for it, so that they can use their old analogue-ear glass. Once this small group is satisfied, no-one else in the market will be interested in a Pentax full-frame demand will break down. Most APS-C users selected APS-C for a reason: To save them from bulk, weight, and costs. All these motivations don't go away suddenly with the arrival of a full frame, as it didn't go away with the arrival of a medium format.

Let's assume, that Pentax has a DSLR market share of 1% (outside Japan), and 1% of current Pentax APS-C users consider going full frame. Then it will have a market share of 0.01%.
Maybe only 0.1% of Pentaxians will be interested, as the majority just gets an entry level DSLR+Kit and wouldn't even consider buying an expensive APS-C-lens.

Then the Pentax full frame market share will be 0.001%.

Can that be profitable?

In terms of stuff they really need to start incorporating in their bodies I think predictive and face detect focus tracking and flash control

Yes, Pentax is still substandard in these things. The flash system and the autofocus are class trailing. This is also the reason, why APS-C Pentaxians still leave to other brands be it for a change to full frame, or for a stay within APS-C.

It depends on what you want. The precision of the Pentax AF is much better than that of most other companies. They have a micro-adjustment others do not have (do not know if this is still true - it was the state from a couple of years). Pentax AF-system maybe slow (it became much better since K3 and all other cameras that followed) - but it is very precise.

In build, handling, interface, value, lens quality then Pentax arguably have the advantage.

No, since the "made in Vietnam" era, the quality reputation got very bad and is still today. Even test sites make comments on the repeatedly poor quality of their samples, e.g. lenstip.com in their 70mm Limited test (or 77mm Limited, don't remember).

Yes, this is true - but unfortunately it is true for all other brands, too. It's one reason why I prefer old lenses. They are solid build and AF has no meaning for me.

The reason why Pentax lenses may be bad in some reviews become visible for me a few years ago: A German computer magazine wanted to test DSLR systems and lenses. They asked the different brands for a sample for testing - all other companies gave them one (and do you expect they will have given one right out of production? I would expect that it is at least tested and tweaked to its optimum). Pentax did not give them a sample. They told them that they could buy one everywhere - they bought one and tested a lemon.

Users come to a different opinion

http://de.pixelpeeper.com/lenses/

Are Pentax lenses that bad?

And regarding the camera bodies I did not find any problems with the quality so far.

My personal experience backs that up.

The times where Pentax had an advantage in value-for-money were, when I decided to enter Pentax (2008 with the K20D).
Today, Pentax is too expensive. The K-3 II (even though second-class in important core qualities like AF-C) is as expensive than the Nikon D7200 (depending on the country. Currently the demand for the D7200 is much higher than the supply in some countries, so that many shops still can command RRP).

But more importantly, all Pentax lenses are overpriced (or just mediocre for the price they demand), when compared to Canon/Nikon.

The image of Pentax cameras and lenses for many years: Very versatile user-oütimized camera systems for less money than Cannikon - technically of same or nearly same level (for camera bodies and same or better regarding the lenses.

This changed dramatically when Hoya bought the company.

If you look at the prices today - yes, they are higher than they should be - a lot of people just buy Sigma or Tamron together with the Pentax body - they get the same for often a few 100 EUR less.

But we also should take into consideration weather sealing as a factor that makes lenses expensive.

If they make the kit les WR then weather sealing can't be that expensive. It's probably nothing compared to the price of the exotic glass elements inside.

The seeming success of Fuji X-T1 (and its lenses) demonstrates, that you can command high prices for your lenses, IF (and only if) you offer excellency (not mediocracy) for the money you are asking for. Having said this, the new Pentax 16-85 seems not too bad actually, but it is just one lens in a program of dozens. Maybe the 16-85 is a small light appearing at the end of a long tunnel? however, it is too late, such a lens should have been made years ago, when Canon/Nikon were doing their 16-85 lenses as well. And many other lenses should have followed in time. Now, a lonesome 16-85 cannot be the sole pilar of an entire, aged lens program.

Personally I'm not full of doom and gloom at all
I estimage, that the Ricoh Board of Directors will pull the plug in 2017, after they've seen that their Pentax brand managers promises regarding the FF profit contributions were a false hope.
[...]
class leading range from medium format down through DSLR to compact and gadget cameras
convince the retail trade to push their world beating range.

Currently, Pentax seem class-trailing (not -leading) in their DSLRs, and unfortunatly the retailers seems to know that as well as their customers do. Prosumers want a good AF-C-autofocus and a good Flash System.

The AF system is overrated in my eyes - it's good for special disciplines of photography - but not for all. And the importance of the flash system is going down in time of good LED technology.

Preferably a class leading one, not a class trailing. Pentax overlooked this demand completely, instead they invested in fancy Gimmicks nobody was asking for.

Nobody likes weather sealing? Nobody like in-camera stabilisation? Nobody likes to get rid of the AA filter for higher IQ? What you call "gimmicks" are those things that are the reason why we still can buy Pentax cameras!

Pentax always build cameras for users and not for technique nerds.

Users take pictures with their iphones

For someone who really loves photography I-phones and all these smartphones are just toys. At least I still do not own one.

Tech nerds like me like suff like weather sealing, obscure astro tracer devices, moving sensors, pixel shift, horizon correction, enabling screw drive on dead SDM lenses and so on.

The TAV-mode - which other brand offers it - and everybody who has used a Pentax camera knows the advantage of it.

Other brands have it as well .. it's just not labeled as TAV but is M mode + ISO set to "auto".

Then on some you can set minimum shutter speed in addition and just shoot in Av which makes

TAV mode kind of redundant.

So, things are not that black as you were painting it. It's a hard market and Pentax has still to recover from the Hoya years.

Why is everyone so negative about Hoya?

I still do not know why Hoya bought Pentax. They did not seem to have any interest but destroying the company (leaving the medical branch alive). The first thing they did was making the gear expensive. Almost no innovations came during Hoya years - but the fired the most important developer of the company. Overall it looked like Pentax still being alive was not part of the plan of Hoya - so why should Pentaxians not be negative about Hoya?

Ricoh by now owns Pentax for as long as Hoya did. If I check what cameras and lenses were released under Hoya and then what was released by Ricoh untl now (and there's a lot of Hoya era tech in the earlier Ricoh releases) I woud say - Hoya did a better job overall.

My impression is that Ricoh is much better. The 645z, the K5 may be constructed already in the Hoya days . but regarding camera bodies they made great improvements. New lenses may be a difficult thing as Ricoh bought Pentax when Hoya already fired the most relevant people of the team. It was a hard beginning and we still do not have a Pentax we knew from days before Hoya - but Ricoh is on a good way. I am optimistic that they will be successful.

 

[p1726]

I don't understand what you're all on about - the accounts show a profit before tax of 115bn yen

Ricoh Corp is profitable as a whole, but the "Others" division (where Pentax belongs to) is currently making a loss (according financial reports for 2014), dragging down the profit of the entire Ricoh Corp.

This puts the Pentax operations at risk, because a board of directors are acting on behalf on the Ricoh investors, which don't like to drain their money in a sink hole in the long run. Sooner or later, the directors will have to pull the plug in one way or the other.

The risk is not yet dangerous today, because the Pentax department leaders may still make the directors believe, that the full frame will become a financial success. However, I don't believe so. There's no relevant market for it. It seems that only a small handful users (fanboys as well of course) in a few forums were shouting for it, so that they can use their old analogue-ear glass. Once this small group is satisfied, no-one else in the market will be interested in a Pentax full-frame demand will break down. Most APS-C users selected APS-C for a reason: To save them from bulk, weight, and costs. All these motivations don't go away suddenly with the arrival of a full frame, as it didn't go away with the arrival of a medium format.

Let's assume, that Pentax has a DSLR market share of 1% (outside Japan), and 1% of current Pentax APS-C users consider going full frame. Then it will have a market share of 0.01%.
Maybe only 0.1% of Pentaxians will be interested, as the majority just gets an entry level DSLR+Kit and wouldn't even consider buying an expensive APS-C-lens.

Then the Pentax full frame market share will be 0.001%.

Can that be profitable?

In terms of stuff they really need to start incorporating in their bodies I think predictive and face detect focus tracking and flash control

Yes, Pentax is still substandard in these things. The flash system and the autofocus are class trailing. This is also the reason, why APS-C Pentaxians still leave to other brands be it for a change to full frame, or for a stay within APS-C.

It depends on what you want. The precision of the Pentax AF is much better than that of most other companies. They have a micro-adjustment others do not have (do not know if this is still true - it was the state from a couple of years). Pentax AF-system maybe slow (it became much better since K3 and all other cameras that followed) - but it is very precise.

In build, handling, interface, value, lens quality then Pentax arguably have the advantage.

No, since the "made in Vietnam" era, the quality reputation got very bad and is still today. Even test sites make comments on the repeatedly poor quality of their samples, e.g. lenstip.com in their 70mm Limited test (or 77mm Limited, don't remember).

Yes, this is true - but unfortunately it is true for all other brands, too. It's one reason why I prefer old lenses. They are solid build and AF has no meaning for me.

The reason why Pentax lenses may be bad in some reviews become visible for me a few years ago: A German computer magazine wanted to test DSLR systems and lenses. They asked the different brands for a sample for testing - all other companies gave them one (and do you expect they will have given one right out of production? I would expect that it is at least tested and tweaked to its optimum). Pentax did not give them a sample. They told them that they could buy one everywhere - they bought one and tested a lemon.

Users come to a different opinion

http://de.pixelpeeper.com/lenses/

Are Pentax lenses that bad?

And regarding the camera bodies I did not find any problems with the quality so far.

My personal experience backs that up.

The times where Pentax had an advantage in value-for-money were, when I decided to enter Pentax (2008 with the K20D).
Today, Pentax is too expensive. The K-3 II (even though second-class in important core qualities like AF-C) is as expensive than the Nikon D7200 (depending on the country. Currently the demand for the D7200 is much higher than the supply in some countries, so that many shops still can command RRP).

But more importantly, all Pentax lenses are overpriced (or just mediocre for the price they demand), when compared to Canon/Nikon.

The image of Pentax cameras and lenses for many years: Very versatile user-oütimized camera systems for less money than Cannikon - technically of same or nearly same level (for camera bodies and same or better regarding the lenses.

This changed dramatically when Hoya bought the company.

If you look at the prices today - yes, they are higher than they should be - a lot of people just buy Sigma or Tamron together with the Pentax body - they get the same for often a few 100 EUR less.

But we also should take into consideration weather sealing as a factor that makes lenses expensive.

If they make the kit les WR then weather sealing can't be that expensive. It's probably nothing compared to the price of the exotic glass elements inside.

The seeming success of Fuji X-T1 (and its lenses) demonstrates, that you can command high prices for your lenses, IF (and only if) you offer excellency (not mediocracy) for the money you are asking for. Having said this, the new Pentax 16-85 seems not too bad actually, but it is just one lens in a program of dozens. Maybe the 16-85 is a small light appearing at the end of a long tunnel? however, it is too late, such a lens should have been made years ago, when Canon/Nikon were doing their 16-85 lenses as well. And many other lenses should have followed in time. Now, a lonesome 16-85 cannot be the sole pilar of an entire, aged lens program.

Personally I'm not full of doom and gloom at all
I estimage, that the Ricoh Board of Directors will pull the plug in 2017, after they've seen that their Pentax brand managers promises regarding the FF profit contributions were a false hope.
[...]
class leading range from medium format down through DSLR to compact and gadget cameras
convince the retail trade to push their world beating range.

Currently, Pentax seem class-trailing (not -leading) in their DSLRs, and unfortunatly the retailers seems to know that as well as their customers do. Prosumers want a good AF-C-autofocus and a good Flash System.

The AF system is overrated in my eyes - it's good for special disciplines of photography - but not for all. And the importance of the flash system is going down in time of good LED technology.

Preferably a class leading one, not a class trailing. Pentax overlooked this demand completely, instead they invested in fancy Gimmicks nobody was asking for.

Nobody likes weather sealing? Nobody like in-camera stabilisation? Nobody likes to get rid of the AA filter for higher IQ? What you call "gimmicks" are those things that are the reason why we still can buy Pentax cameras!

Pentax always build cameras for users and not for technique nerds.

Users take pictures with their iphones

Tech nerds like me like suff like weather sealing, obscure astro tracer devices, moving sensors, pixel shift, horizon correction, enabling screw drive on dead SDM lenses and so on.

The TAV-mode - which other brand offers it - and everybody who has used a Pentax camera knows the advantage of it.

Other brands have it as well .. it's just not labeled as TAV but is M mode + ISO set to "auto".

Then on some you can set minimum shutter speed in addition and just shoot in Av which makes

TAV mode kind of redundant.

So, things are not that black as you were painting it. It's a hard market and Pentax has still to recover from the Hoya years.

Why is everyone so negative about Hoya?

- how they took over Pentax (working together with SPARX)

- what they did to it (cost cutting, cost cutting and more cost cutting).

The sad part is that Hoya didn't want nor care about the Imaging Systems part of Pentax.

Ricoh by now owns Pentax for as long as Hoya did. If I check what cameras and lenses were released under Hoya and then what was released by Ricoh untl now (and there's a lot of Hoya era tech in the earlier Ricoh releases) I woud say - Hoya did a better job overall.

It will be "as long as Hoya" in the beginning of 2016, but Hoya&SPARX started to impact Pentax before that.

A more significant difference is what each company took over to. Hoya had a Pentax which just launched the amazing K10D and were preparing an entire series of new lenses. Ricoh OTOH took a "shadow of their former selves" Pentax, weakened by too much cost cutting.

In other words, the "better job" of Hoya was to let Pentax launch the lenses which were already planned. After that, they cut down on development - you can see that Pentax launched fewer and fewer lenses, stopping altogether (with K-mount) in 2011.

Ricoh is doing the opposite, they're starting from almost standstill and now they're announcing an entire line of products (K-mount FF).

Alex

I'm not much into trivia, but according to wikipedia ( which is never wrong ) the deal with Hoya was finalized on August 6, 2007 and anounced they will sell it to Ricoh on July 1, 2011 and they actually aquired it in October. So if these are correct practically each company owned Pentax for roughly 4 years.

But it does not matter too much ... my point was that despite all the cost cutting and other evil things they did - Hoya was still releasing great products such as K-7, K-5 , K-x for that matter and even 654D and some of the most well-regarded Pentax lenses to date. And despite they claim it is a "strategic" investment for them - Ricoh really has not released that many new products yet.

I've got my first Pentax DSLR exactly during Hoya times and back then the whole "Pentax is doomed" thing was not yet started. All the whining about the "bad Hoya destroyed Pentax and that's why under Ricoh they cannot recover yet" by the apologistic fanboys started sometime after Ricoh accuired Pentax. Just so they can find some excuse why for a couple of years Ricoh practically did not release anything new and did not communicate any real roadmap about what their plans are - there were several iternal merges, renaming of the imaging divisions and so on, giving the impression they don't really know what to do.

 

[Alex Sarbu]

I don't understand what you're all on about - the accounts show a profit before tax of 115bn yen

Ricoh Corp is profitable as a whole, but the "Others" division (where Pentax belongs to) is currently making a loss (according financial reports for 2014), dragging down the profit of the entire Ricoh Corp.

This puts the Pentax operations at risk, because a board of directors are acting on behalf on the Ricoh investors, which don't like to drain their money in a sink hole in the long run. Sooner or later, the directors will have to pull the plug in one way or the other.

The risk is not yet dangerous today, because the Pentax department leaders may still make the directors believe, that the full frame will become a financial success. However, I don't believe so. There's no relevant market for it. It seems that only a small handful users (fanboys as well of course) in a few forums were shouting for it, so that they can use their old analogue-ear glass. Once this small group is satisfied, no-one else in the market will be interested in a Pentax full-frame demand will break down. Most APS-C users selected APS-C for a reason: To save them from bulk, weight, and costs. All these motivations don't go away suddenly with the arrival of a full frame, as it didn't go away with the arrival of a medium format.

Let's assume, that Pentax has a DSLR market share of 1% (outside Japan), and 1% of current Pentax APS-C users consider going full frame. Then it will have a market share of 0.01%.
Maybe only 0.1% of Pentaxians will be interested, as the majority just gets an entry level DSLR+Kit and wouldn't even consider buying an expensive APS-C-lens.

Then the Pentax full frame market share will be 0.001%.

Can that be profitable?

In terms of stuff they really need to start incorporating in their bodies I think predictive and face detect focus tracking and flash control

Yes, Pentax is still substandard in these things. The flash system and the autofocus are class trailing. This is also the reason, why APS-C Pentaxians still leave to other brands be it for a change to full frame, or for a stay within APS-C.

It depends on what you want. The precision of the Pentax AF is much better than that of most other companies. They have a micro-adjustment others do not have (do not know if this is still true - it was the state from a couple of years). Pentax AF-system maybe slow (it became much better since K3 and all other cameras that followed) - but it is very precise.

In build, handling, interface, value, lens quality then Pentax arguably have the advantage.

No, since the "made in Vietnam" era, the quality reputation got very bad and is still today. Even test sites make comments on the repeatedly poor quality of their samples, e.g. lenstip.com in their 70mm Limited test (or 77mm Limited, don't remember).

Yes, this is true - but unfortunately it is true for all other brands, too. It's one reason why I prefer old lenses. They are solid build and AF has no meaning for me.

The reason why Pentax lenses may be bad in some reviews become visible for me a few years ago: A German computer magazine wanted to test DSLR systems and lenses. They asked the different brands for a sample for testing - all other companies gave them one (and do you expect they will have given one right out of production? I would expect that it is at least tested and tweaked to its optimum). Pentax did not give them a sample. They told them that they could buy one everywhere - they bought one and tested a lemon.

Users come to a different opinion

http://de.pixelpeeper.com/lenses/

Are Pentax lenses that bad?

And regarding the camera bodies I did not find any problems with the quality so far.

My personal experience backs that up.

The times where Pentax had an advantage in value-for-money were, when I decided to enter Pentax (2008 with the K20D).
Today, Pentax is too expensive. The K-3 II (even though second-class in important core qualities like AF-C) is as expensive than the Nikon D7200 (depending on the country. Currently the demand for the D7200 is much higher than the supply in some countries, so that many shops still can command RRP).

But more importantly, all Pentax lenses are overpriced (or just mediocre for the price they demand), when compared to Canon/Nikon.

The image of Pentax cameras and lenses for many years: Very versatile user-oütimized camera systems for less money than Cannikon - technically of same or nearly same level (for camera bodies and same or better regarding the lenses.

This changed dramatically when Hoya bought the company.

If you look at the prices today - yes, they are higher than they should be - a lot of people just buy Sigma or Tamron together with the Pentax body - they get the same for often a few 100 EUR less.

But we also should take into consideration weather sealing as a factor that makes lenses expensive.

If they make the kit les WR then weather sealing can't be that expensive. It's probably nothing compared to the price of the exotic glass elements inside.

The seeming success of Fuji X-T1 (and its lenses) demonstrates, that you can command high prices for your lenses, IF (and only if) you offer excellency (not mediocracy) for the money you are asking for. Having said this, the new Pentax 16-85 seems not too bad actually, but it is just one lens in a program of dozens. Maybe the 16-85 is a small light appearing at the end of a long tunnel? however, it is too late, such a lens should have been made years ago, when Canon/Nikon were doing their 16-85 lenses as well. And many other lenses should have followed in time. Now, a lonesome 16-85 cannot be the sole pilar of an entire, aged lens program.

Personally I'm not full of doom and gloom at all
I estimage, that the Ricoh Board of Directors will pull the plug in 2017, after they've seen that their Pentax brand managers promises regarding the FF profit contributions were a false hope.
[...]
class leading range from medium format down through DSLR to compact and gadget cameras
convince the retail trade to push their world beating range.

Currently, Pentax seem class-trailing (not -leading) in their DSLRs, and unfortunatly the retailers seems to know that as well as their customers do. Prosumers want a good AF-C-autofocus and a good Flash System.

The AF system is overrated in my eyes - it's good for special disciplines of photography - but not for all. And the importance of the flash system is going down in time of good LED technology.

Preferably a class leading one, not a class trailing. Pentax overlooked this demand completely, instead they invested in fancy Gimmicks nobody was asking for.

Nobody likes weather sealing? Nobody like in-camera stabilisation? Nobody likes to get rid of the AA filter for higher IQ? What you call "gimmicks" are those things that are the reason why we still can buy Pentax cameras!

Pentax always build cameras for users and not for technique nerds.

Users take pictures with their iphones

Tech nerds like me like suff like weather sealing, obscure astro tracer devices, moving sensors, pixel shift, horizon correction, enabling screw drive on dead SDM lenses and so on.

The TAV-mode - which other brand offers it - and everybody who has used a Pentax camera knows the advantage of it.

Other brands have it as well .. it's just not labeled as TAV but is M mode + ISO set to "auto".

Then on some you can set minimum shutter speed in addition and just shoot in Av which makes

TAV mode kind of redundant.

So, things are not that black as you were painting it. It's a hard market and Pentax has still to recover from the Hoya years.

Why is everyone so negative about Hoya?

- how they took over Pentax (working together with SPARX)

- what they did to it (cost cutting, cost cutting and more cost cutting).

The sad part is that Hoya didn't want nor care about the Imaging Systems part of Pentax.

Ricoh by now owns Pentax for as long as Hoya did. If I check what cameras and lenses were released under Hoya and then what was released by Ricoh untl now (and there's a lot of Hoya era tech in the earlier Ricoh releases) I woud say - Hoya did a better job overall.

It will be "as long as Hoya" in the beginning of 2016, but Hoya&SPARX started to impact Pentax before that.

A more significant difference is what each company took over to. Hoya had a Pentax which just launched the amazing K10D and were preparing an entire series of new lenses. Ricoh OTOH took a "shadow of their former selves" Pentax, weakened by too much cost cutting.

In other words, the "better job" of Hoya was to let Pentax launch the lenses which were already planned. After that, they cut down on development - you can see that Pentax launched fewer and fewer lenses, stopping altogether (with K-mount) in 2011.

Ricoh is doing the opposite, they're starting from almost standstill and now they're announcing an entire line of products (K-mount FF).

Alex

I'm not much into trivia, but according to wikipedia ( which is never wrong ) the deal with Hoya was finalized on August 6, 2007 and anounced they will sell it to Ricoh on July 1, 2011 and they actually aquired it in October. So if these are correct practically each company owned Pentax for roughly 4 years.

Roughly. From August 2007 to October 2011 we have 4 years and 2 months. From October 2011 to June 2015, 3 years and 6 months. But that's not important.

But it does not matter too much ... my point was that despite all the cost cutting and other evil things they did - Hoya was still releasing great products such as K-7, K-5 , K-x for that matter and even 654D and some of the most well-regarded Pentax lenses to date. And despite they claim it is a "strategic" investment for them - Ricoh really has not released that many new products yet.

I wouldn't say 'evil' - IMO Hoya either was, or become unwilling to invest money on the long term. They tried to protect their margins at the expense of development and market share/volume, which is why Pentax is struggling today. But there was no plan to kill Pentax Imaging Systems per se.

Their contribution to the 645D was to approve the project; the work being done by Pentax. They probably saw it as a sure hit, so it had a go. Other things were scrapped - the long lens which became the 560mm, a fast 30mm, the 1.4x rear converter etc. And I don't think they would have approved the full frame project.

And they fired people. I read some time ago that Ricoh was struggling to hire engineers... that's surely more difficult than to get rid of them.

I've got my first Pentax DSLR exactly during Hoya times and back then the whole "Pentax is doomed" thing was not yet started. All the whining about the "bad Hoya destroyed Pentax and that's why under Ricoh they cannot recover yet" by the apologistic fanboys started sometime after Ricoh accuired Pentax. Just so they can find some excuse why for a couple of years Ricoh practically did not release anything new and did not communicate any real roadmap about what their plans are - there were several iternal merges, renaming of the imaging divisions and so on, giving the impression they don't really know what to do.

There's a much simpler explanation - the first two "Hoya" years, 2008 and 2009, were fine; then we had lots of new lenses, including DA*s and Limiteds. Even 2007 saw the first DA* lenses. Sure, those were projects started by Pentax Corporation.

People (included myself) started to reevaluate them when things stopped to a grinding halt. 8 K-mount lenses in 2008. 4 in 2009. 2 in 2010 (but then, they did the K-5 and the 645D). Nothing in 2011.

It's only naturally that we would observe such a change. Just as we can see now Ricoh Imaging launching high end lenses as the first step of the new FF product line.

By the way, my first impression about Hoya was negative - after all, they conspired together with SPARX to forcibly take over a healthy Pentax Corporation. I gave them the benefit of doubt though, and the first signs were relatively positive.

Alex