HOYA SWALLOWS PENTAX !

http://ricehigh.blogspot.com/2006/12...ws-pentax.html

RiceHigh wrote:
http://ricehigh.blogspot.com/2006/12...ws-pentax.html


from another source:

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-6145349.html

Well, many of us sensed that it was coming.

Pentax had been a longtime user of Hoya optical glass, but to see Hoya
swallow Pentax us is disconcerting.

These mergers nearly always result in big changes, and I would not be
surprised if the "Pentax" name disappears entirely over the next few years.

Pentax, for me, was never really the same after they changed their name from
Asahi Optical Co. to Pentax Corp. They came out with uninspiring cameras
that came and went without making their marks, unlike the Spotmatic series
did.

They cheapened their lenses once they introduced the "A" series. THis was
particularly disconcerting because the optical performance of the "A" lenses
was superior to that of the screwmounts and the original K-mounts, while the
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.

When I heard that Pentax had just invested in a lot of factory space in
VIETNAM I knew that they had given up on their legacy.

I'm depressed. THat's progress, I suppose.

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?

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

Ken Lucke wrote:
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

Recent study on the news the other night. You are twice as likely to
die in an accident
with a small car than a large one, internal compensation devices
(airbags) nothwithstanding.

RichA wrote:

Recent study on the news the other night. You are twice as likely to
die in an accident
with a small car than a large one, internal compensation devices
(airbags) nothwithstanding.


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.

Ken Lucke wrote:
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?

Yes, I've been in one from which I was lucky to get out alive. Can't
say it changed my view (if anything, it enhanced my opinion that how a
car handles is more important than how robust it is). I agree that if a
tank hits me then it's better to be in another tank, though.


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).


Well, we have very different priorities in cars, I must admit.

acl wrote:

Ken Lucke wrote:

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?

Yes, I've been in one from which I was lucky to get out alive. Can't
say it changed my view (if anything, it enhanced my opinion that how a
car handles is more important than how robust it is). I agree that if a
tank hits me then it's better to be in another tank, though.

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).

Well, we have very different priorities in cars, I must admit.

My car must be big enough to hold my big DSLR and all
the lenses I carry ;-)

Roger

On 21 Dec 2006 11:11:19 -0800, "acl"
wrote:


Ken Lucke wrote:
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?

Yes, I've been in one from which I was lucky to get out alive. Can't
say it changed my view (if anything, it enhanced my opinion that how a
car handles is more important than how robust it is). I agree that if a
tank hits me then it's better to be in another tank, though.

About 5 years ago I had one of those immortal teenagers in his
invincible SUV come shooting out of a driveway with all 4 burning. Two
solid lanes of oncoming traffic on the left and trees to the right.

I only left about 12 feet of skid marks before sticking the nose of my
Trans Am into the side of that GMC Jimmy. He was going fast enough
to spin me through the oncoming traffic and into a bank parking lot.
The GMC turned 90 degrees and stopped about 30 feed down the left turn
lane.

It put the right front tire almost into the seat on that side. The
firewall was back against the bottom of the dash all the way across
and I wrapped the steering wheel around the column. The car stopped so
quick all the antennas bent over flat against the body.

Even bending that steering wheel I was unhurt. Punchier than after a
6-pack on an empty stomach, but unhurt. The kid in the SUV ended up in
the hospital with a broken shoulder or collar bone. The only thing
that save his life was that massive door pillar on the Jimmy.

However the air bags, seat and shoulder harness and that car body
folding up (plus being missed by all that oncoming traffic) is the
only reason I'm alive.

I also fly high performance airplanes. The interesting comparison is
insurance rates and vehicle value. The more you drive the higher your
rates due to exposure, but the more you fly the lower your rates due
to time building competency.



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).


If gas would get up to $5 a gallon we might be able to do something
about that.

We worry about the dangers of all kinds of devices and demand
protection. Then we go out and kill off between 40,000 and 50,000 a
year on the highways and chalk it up to the cost of doing business.

Well, we have very different priorities in cars, I must admit.

Any time you take a car out it's a risk. There is a calculated risk
associated with virtually every action we take. I'm willing to take
the higher risk associated with the smaller car, or flying an
airplane.

I drive a 4WD SUV for a lot of things and my wife's Hybrid when it's
available. I doubt I'm any safer in the SUV with all the *stuff* I
throw in back. Plus in either car I usually have a couple of cameras
in the right front seat. One with a Short to medium wide range zoom
and the other with a 200 to 500 zoom.

My first wife (many, many years ago in another life) lived because she
was thrown out of a car in a wreck. You would never get her to wear a
seat belt, even though the odds are far in favor for doing so. Had I
not had a seat belt on when I hit that SUV it would have been quite a
ride. One deputy with a kind of lop sided grin asked, "did you have
your seat belt on". I replied "I sure wouldn't be walking around like
this if I hadn't".

and the insurance company refused to rebuild...er ...fix it.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com