HOYA SWALLOWS PENTAX !

"jeremy" wrote:

Typically, the stronger company buys up the weaker one's
resources and then sells off the parts that do not fit
What if Hoya were to sell off the camera unit to Samsung?

Sadly, that seems the most likely future scenario :^(

--
Anti-Spam address: my last name at his dot com
Charles Gillen -- Reston, Virginia, USA

Let's just cross our fingers and hope
that the influx of capital is what Pentax needed to move as fast as
they need to in today's DSLR market.



I hope you're right, but I think you're not.

Now that Pentax has virtually admitted that they are on the skids, who
will commit to buying DSLR systems from them, especially the medium format
line? Will pros gamble on a brand that may not be here after a couple of
bad quarterly-sales figures? Will consumers commit to relatively big
ticket purchases of lenses for a camera that might disappear off
retailers' shelves within a year? Will retailers order large numbers of
cameras and lenses for sale, with no way to predict whether they will
sell?

The confidence factor has been lost.

It is one thing to buy a P&S, that requires no additional accessory
purchases and is disposable. But who will commit to buying into a system
that may end up having only salvage value?

I agree, as a very new K100 owner, I'm afraid of this (I posted on
rec.photo.digital but no one cares). Because the K100 is cheap and exactly
fitting my needs with the 2 zoom kits, I'll not send it back to the
distributor although I could have my money back. I'll not buy other
accessories because I don't want to anyway, and if pentax is ending the
cameras and my K100 falls brocken in 2-3 years, I'll buy a second hand
K10...
but I wont spend lot of money in a complete pentax DSLR system. it's too
risky.

"map" wrote:
I agree, as a very new K100 owner, I'm afraid of this (I posted on
rec.photo.digital but no one cares). Because the K100 is cheap and exactly
fitting my needs with the 2 zoom kits, I'll not send it back to the
distributor although I could have my money back. I'll not buy other
accessories because I don't want to anyway, and if pentax is ending the
cameras and my K100 falls brocken in 2-3 years, I'll buy a second hand
K10...
but I wont spend lot of money in a complete pentax DSLR system. it's too
risky.


Pentax is a highly profitable company, and this merger with Hoya means
that there will be more financial resources for Pentax's ambitious
future plans. It is a merger of two financially strong corporations,
both of which are known for innovation and investment in new products.

There was already a very strong co-operation between Tokina (part of
Hoya Corporation) and Pentax, because Tokina have co-developed many of
Pentax's new DA lenses. No doubt Tokina liked what they saw.

The Pentax K10D is the top selling DSLR in Japan, and orders in Europe
have been several times higher than Pentax expected. The new DA zoom
lenses, co-developed with Tokina, will be launched within weeks. The
future of Pentax has never been as bright as it is now.

So hang in there! Be happy that you made such a good choice!

;-)

"map" wrote in message
...


I'll not buy other accessories because I don't want to anyway, and if
pentax is ending the cameras and my K100 falls brocken in 2-3 years, I'll
buy a second hand K10...
but I wont spend lot of money in a complete pentax DSLR system. it's too
risky.


Precisely my point. The uncertainty factor is bound to create fallout, in
terms of lost sales to consumers that are not inclined to buy into a dying
product line.

There is simply no way to know what Hoya will do with Pentax, but it is a
virtual certainty that there will be changes in the product line. Had Hoya
wanted to , it could have simply bough Pentax and held it as a wholly-owned
subsidiary, with its own president, management team and directors. Hoya
would have been the sole stockholder. But we see that Hoya is folding
Pentax into itself.

While no one has a crystal ball, it is difficult to believe that this merger
will be unlike so many of the others, where the weaker company's assets are
picked off and the rest is sold or withdrawn from production.

I remember reading not too long ago that some of Pentax's major investors
were unhappy with its digital offerings and were pressing Pentax to stick
with film cameras, where it had a competitive edge and brand recognition.
Frankly, Pentax's former glory can't help if no one is buying film cameras
anymore. Even Leica had to enter the digital market, its longstanding
reputation for quality notwithstanding.

Even though all of this saddens me, it really should come as no surprise.
Advances in technology are coming at a rapid-fire pace these days, and some
technology is killing off what were formerly established products and
services. Look at what happened when U.S. Sprint began building a
fiber-optic ling distance network in the US, 25 years ago. AT&T had a vast
network of copper wire long distance trunks, and they had to replace all of
it in order to remain competitive. Then came the Internet and there was no
longer a market for long distance billed by the minute. I get free long
distance on evenings and weekends from my cellular carrier and I have a
flat-rate $25.00 per month for unlimited calls to the US and Canada from
Verizon's VoIP offering, VoiceWing. It wasn't too long ago that I was
billed $.50/minute when I phoned friends in Canada from the US. Skype just
announced a flat rate for unlimited calls of only $15.00 PER YEAR.

Remember Telex? When I worked for a Fortune 500 firm in Philadelphia we had
our own teletype room, and could send telegrams and telexes at what was then
a reduced rate of something like $4.00 per message, because we had the
teleprinter in our office and did not require a messenger to dispatch our
messages to us.

Tower Records went bankrupt, due mainly to competition from music
downloading, and they just closed their store in Center City Philadelphia 2
days ago. Who would have imagined that a record chain would fail because
people could get their music over broadband?

AT&T was on the verge of collapse, and was sold for pennies on the dollar
just a few months ago. This was the company whose stock dividends used to
be so certain that it was THE primary choice for "Widows and Orphans" funds.

Lucent Technologies, the former child of the Bell System that made phones,
PBXes and switchboards, had to merge with Alcatel (a French company) to stay
alive.

So should we get ourselves all crazed up over what appears to be Pentax's
survival scheme? Everywhere there are shakeouts, and we've witnessed plenty
over the past couple of years in the camera business. Bronica gone. Not
sold--but GONE. Contax gone. Minolta sold, then gone. Hasselblad sold and
no longer manufacturing the equipment that they were known for for a half
century, replaced by digital. Lenses made by Fuji, not Zeiss.

I am not optimistic about Pentax. Neither do I have high hopes for used
camera dealers' ability to remain viable, because there is little coming
into the pipeline that is worth buying. It is one thing to sell, and
resell, a Rolleiflex TLR. But who is buying 5-year-old digital cameras that
sold for $5000 and now have been replaced with equipment that is 10 times
better and sells for 1/10 the price?

"Camera stores" are no longer a fixture in every decent-sized town in
America.

Some will embrace the new ways and say "Good riddance" to all that used
junk. It matters little which side of the argument you come down on,
because in another 15 years no one will remember any of this, just like
today's college-aged kids have no memories of buying LPs or 45 RPM records.

Guess I'm just lucky -- decided that Nikon D50 was better for long
term than Pentax k100D. At least the Nikon name is still there today
(and doing pretty well in sales, too). So my purchase of the D50 just
a week ago is even more satisfying.

Joe

jeremy wrote:

I can't think offhand of any major company that was helped in its financial
woes by being merged into a bigger, better-capitalized company.

Really? How about Nikon when it was bought by Mitsubishi?

--
Mark Roberts Photography & Multimedia
www.robertstech.com
412-687-2835

Bob Hickey wrote:
"Pudentame" wrote in message
...
OTOH, my own experience indicates a smaller, more nimble vehicle allows
the driver avoid accidents he might not be able to avoid in a larger,
heavier, less maneuverable automobile. That's the
whole problem right there. Avoid, nimble, maneuverable? That's a joke,
right? I'd be happy to see "awake". I'd be happy to see "off the phone" I'd
be happy to see "make-up already done"..The limit of most peoples driving
knowledge is that soon after an accident, something will blow up right in
their face to save them. Mostly, after the crumple zone is done crumpling;
said air bag is much closer to the victim. Bob Hickey



Don't wear makeup; only use the cell phone after I've pulled off on the
shoulder to rat some a**hole b*&tard out ...

I generally try to anticipate what's going to happen ahead by the time
I get there, e.g. if everyone a mile or more down has their foot on the
brake, mine comes off the accelerator to start opening my stopping
distance *and* to give me room if I have to go off onto the shoulder to
let the idiot behind me rear-end the idiot in front of me.

I don't weave in and out of traffic, generally choosing the lane I'm
going to need to be in at my next major decision point; change lanes
when the first sign says lane ends 1 mile ...

Know where I'm going *before* I get in the car and turn the key ...

.... smaller, more nimble works for me. Mostly.

"Mark Roberts" wrote in message
...
jeremy wrote:

I can't think offhand of any major company that was helped in its
financial
woes by being merged into a bigger, better-capitalized company.

Really? How about Nikon when it was bought by Mitsubishi?

--
Mark Roberts Photography & Multimedia
www.robertstech.com
412-687-2835





I didn't know that. When was Nikon bought out?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

jeremy wrote:
"Mark Roberts" wrote in message
...
jeremy wrote:

I can't think offhand of any major company that was helped in its
financial
woes by being merged into a bigger, better-capitalized company.
Really? How about Nikon when it was bought by Mitsubishi?

--
Mark Roberts Photography & Multimedia
www.robertstech.com
412-687-2835





I didn't know that. When was Nikon bought out?

The Nikon situation is a bit different than Pentax/Hoya. But there have
been some cooperation between Pextax and Hoya for some time. What the
changes will bring remain to be seen.

For info on the history of Mitsubishi/Nikon see:
http://www.mitsubishielectric.com/about/history.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFjI4Hu4tRirKTPYwRAklbAJ9YbZ1rZGh3i8vXOYzzzk W042BzGQCfYpRw
kwuMgBtcEvWTgjVy6IZ+Tz0=
=cezd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

"Starlord" wrote in message
...
I have to carry my Telescopes in my car which happens to be a 1974 plmy,
and I don't need to smog it either.


--
There are those who believe that life here, began out there, far across
the universe, with tribes of humans, who may have been the forefathers of
the Egyptians, or the Toltechs, or the Mayans. Some believe that they may
yet be brothers of man, who even now fight to survive, somewhere beyond
the heavens.


The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
The Church of Eternity
http://home.inreach.com/starlord/church/Eternity.html


"Ken Lucke" wrote in message
...
In article , acl
wrote:

jeremy wrote:
mechanical build quality had deteriorated noticably. Just like new
cars.
Better fuel economy and more amenities, at the expense of less sheet
metal
and smaller overall size.

So, basically, you prefer cars with lots of sheet metal and large size?


Damn straight _I_ do. Sheet metal, true internal structure (not just
some flimsy suppoorts for the outer skin), and large size. I'd take
high strength composite fiber/plastics (NOT fiberglass!) if they ever
start making cars with them (oops, sorry, that was an inadvertent cue
for RichA to enter the thread with his obsession), but until then, I
want METAL around me. The more the better.

Ever seen a serious wreck? Ever been in one?

From 1979 to 1996, I worked as a professional, full time paramedic (in
Portland, OR and other places), and the last 6 years was also a
firefighter. I've _seen_ (and sometimes had to scrape up) the
difference in outcomes.

Sorry, but to hell with fuel economy... with the millions of people on
the road in this country who merely know "how to operate a motor
vehicle" as opposed to actually knowing how to _drive_ their vehicles
(and there is a HUGE difference between those two skillsets), I want a
tank around me, if possible. Again, damn straight I prefer a vehicle
with some substance to it rather than today's tin cans that a wrinkle
in the sheet metal causes major loss of body integrity and strength
(literally).

--
You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
independence.
-- Charles A. Beard


I see terrible formula I crashes where there is nothing left of the car at
all but the cage containing the driver, and yet he steps out of his "cage"
and walks away.... so you don't need a "tank" to be safe. I have found that
the best way to avoid an accident is to drive around it.....I drove around
one several years ago by taking to the center strip.....