RICOH to buy PENTAX

[I @ M]

I concur with your comments Tannin but my wish was for a 500 (or 600) prime, f4 or f5.6, with better IQ than the Sigma xxx - 500 zooms, at around the $2500- $3000 mark,

I think many would like such a beast and the nearest alternative would be the Sigma 500mm F4.5 EX DG APO HSM but even a grey market price seems to be a bit over $4,000.00

[Tannin]

Spot on, Trublubiker! An enthausiast lens - say something broadly similar to the Sigma 50-500 or the Canon 100-400, or better yet something different like a a 400/4.5 or a 500/5.6 - this sort of thing could come in around the $2000-$3500 mark and could find a ready market. It's the $10k stuff that they can't hope to sell.

But I thought Pentax introduced a very nice looking 400/4 a year or two ago? What was that then? An on-paper product that they just made one of to take to trade shows?

[Falcons]

One assumes that Pentax aren't stupid. Ditto the money men at Ricoh. Why would they spend waste good money on designing and developing a 500/4 or similar? It would cost a heap to do - because it needs to be in the same image quality ballpark as the truly excellent Canon and Nikon products already on the market - and achieve nothing - because anyone serious enough about wildlife to buy a $10,000 lens is going to be smart enough to buy a Nikon or a Canon one. Nothing wrong with Pentax lenses, I hasten to add, they are generally excellent, and nothing wrong with Pentax cameras either, but they use in-body IS which is known to be inferior to in-lens IS at longer focal lengths, and if you are spending $10,000, you want the best, not the nearest next-best.

Nope. Pentax/Ricoh will play it smart, and aim at targets they can get traction with. Something like a 400/5.6 would be sensible, and anything in the more general-purpose range would go well. I'm not sure where the gaps in the Pentax range are, but I'm talking staples like (e.g.) 70-200/4 and /2.8; 24ish-100ish/4; 15ish-80ish/4-5.6; and 70-300/4-5.6. Pentax need to focus on lenses worth less than two or three thousand - and I bet they do.

Agree that Pentax probably wont produce a 500mm + lens but am interested in your claim that in lens IS is superior to in camera IS - do you have any info other than canikon advertisng rhetoric to back this statement? Many believe the opposite with long lenses on the premise that the further away from the sensor the IS is the more prone to errors. I haven't seen any hard evidence eitrher way just advertising rhetoric from both camps. Here is a link http://www.slrgear.com/articles/is_o...0_SLR_Body.htm to a test done that concluded "While we can't generalize from one camera's test results to all sensor-based IS systems, the performance of the Olympus E-520's IS system certainly demonstrated that there's no inherent reason why sensor-based IS systems should underperform lens-based ones."

As to Tokina I dont see why Ricoh would want to stop receiving revenue from allowing Tokina access to Pentax technology for lenses.

This will be a good move for the Pentax brand - Ricoh was a serious player in SLR once beforew and is still a known brand, perhaps we will see Pentax taking on the higher end market and Ricoh the budget end. Time wiill tell.

[JM Tran]

Agree that Pentax probably wont produce a 500mm + lens but am interested in your claim that in lens IS is superior to in camera IS - do you have any info other than canikon advertisng rhetoric to back this statement? Many believe the opposite with long lenses on the premise that the further away from the sensor the IS is the more prone to errors. I haven't seen any hard evidence eitrher way just advertising rhetoric from both camps. Here is a link http://www.slrgear.com/articles/is_o...0_SLR_Body.htm to a test done that concluded "While we can't generalize from one camera's test results to all sensor-based IS systems, the performance of the Olympus E-520's IS system certainly demonstrated that there's no inherent reason why sensor-based IS systems should underperform lens-based ones."

That is a flawed test for the Olympus.

At this point, we've only tested this one sensor-based IS system, so we can't draw any general conclusions from it. it's possible that sensor-based systems could run into limitations at very long focal lengths, but in the case of the E-520, its performance with a 150mm lens attached (equivalent to a 300mm lens on a 35mm camera, or a 200mm lens on a DSLR with a 1.5x crop factor) was about as good as that of one of the best lens-based IS systems we've tested, namely that of the Canon 70-200mm F/4L IS. And at shorter focal lengths, it did better.

Going forward, it would be interesting to look at how well a sensor-based IS system handles even longer focal lengths, but for the vast bulk of amateurs, a 300mm equivalent is the longest lens they'll use anyway. This isn't to say that we won't test a longer lens on a sensor-based IS system at some time in the future; the point we're making here is that the question is moot for a large percentage of users.

I have been using sensor-based stabilization technology in Pentax and Oly ever since it was introduced nearly 5 years ago, alongside Canon and Nikon's in-lens IS systems. I was not as happy with the sensor stabilization of long focal lengths until I started using Canon's tele lenses.

I can safely say, along with other pros and amateurs - is that in-lens will WORK BETTER WITH LONG TELEPHOTOS - the constant IS adjustments you can see through the viewfinder as the camera and lens moves - is beneficial to the shooter. Whereas a sensor based IS system does not show a 'live' view of the IS in action and you can still see the image shaking until you have taken the shot. That was also mentioned in the test. Now, if that test is to be taken seriously, use more lenses and compare more systems.

Not to mention the stated stop improvements of 2.7 etc, nothing to boast about. It is also a given fact that a sensor based IS cannot match something akin to a 4 stop improvement on the latest IS systems.

[I @ M]

As to Tokina I dont see why Ricoh would want to stop receiving revenue from allowing Tokina access to Pentax technology for lenses.

The Tokina question sprang to my mind initially because Tokina have been manufacturing ( according to them ) for 55 years and they were under the umbrella group of Hoya.
The movements that have taken place recently have seen Kenko take on or absorb Tokina as one company and I think that there is/was a tie up with Slik tripods in there somewhere as well.
From an Australian perspective we now have a bit of a mixed distributor base for products from the same manufacturers with Pentax cameras, Kenko and Slik handled by one company and Hoya and Tokina products held by another company.
Meanwhile the present Australian distributors of Ricoh camera products are another company again which made me wonder where, if any, product rationalisation will end up here down under.

As for the lens sharing tech between Pentax & Tokina I am not sure which way that went. I have heard a few things about some Pentax lenses having been made by Tokina and rebadged and also the other way where some Tokina lenses were based entirely on Pentax products but as it stands now there doesn't seem to be any logical connection between Pentax and Tokina.

[Irru]

One obvious thing Ricoh will do is supplement their M mount module for the GXR with a similar K mount.
Sharing the Pentax pancake primes between the compact body and the more serious Pentax bodies is ideal. If I were now where I was a six months ago, tossing up between m43 and Pentax - I'd pick Ricoh GXR without hesitation.

Edited for bad wording.

[Kym]

http://photorumors.com/2011/07/01/op...-and-partners/

July 1, 2011

Dear Valued PENTAX Customers and Partners,

We would like to hereby inform you that we, HOYA Corporation, have made an agreement regarding the business transfer of our PENTAX Imaging System Business to RICOH Corporation today, July 1, 2011.

The effective date of the business transfer is set for October 1, 2011. The business areas to be transferred as PENTAX Imaging System Business are digital cameras, interchangeable lenses, digital camera accessories, binoculars and security-related products, including R&D, design, manufacturing and sales for those product categories.

PENTAX Imaging system business will be succeeded by a newly established company scheduled on October 1, 2011, and then RICOH Corporation will acquire 100% of its stock right after the establishment.

No operational changes of PENTAX Imaging System Business are anticipated for the time being by making this agreement. All employees will be transferred to the new company accordingly. Also, all current products will continue to be sold with the PENTAX brand name under current operations.

PENTAX, under the guidance of RICOH, will continue with our best effort to grow and evolve our business and partnerships and deliver quality products and services designed for a high level of customer satisfaction.

Again, we appreciate your continued support of PENTAX.

Thank you very much.

Best regards,

Toshiaki Iue,

President

PENTAX Imaging Systems Division

[Kym]

http://pentaxdslrs.blogspot.com/2011...s-largest.html

Hi Pentaxian friends.

Hoya Corp , the world's second largest maker of optical glass used in cameras, said on Thursday it would open its first furnaces overseas by the end of the year, diversifying production away from Japan, where power shortages loom.

The firm, which competes with market leader Ohara Inc , will open a plant in Weihai in China, hoping to take advantage of burgeoning demand for cameras in China, and easier access to raw materials including rare earth lanthanum, a company spokeswoman said.

The plant is set to begin operations in December. Hoya said the cost of the factory is yet to be determined.

Hoya, a supplier to Canon , the world's largest maker of digital cameras...

Does anyone else see a conflict of interest here, or is it just me?
Posted by Yvon Bourque

[Tannin]

^ Nope. Hoya supplies everyone. Hoya is one of the largest glass products companies in the world, they supply stuff to just about everyone. It would be astonishing to discover that Hoya didn't sell some stuff to Nikon, Olympus, Matsushita (Panasonic), and any other company that makes optical products in Japan. Canon is the same as Seagate. Both firms are the market leaders, and both firms generally prefer to invent, design, and manufacture all their components in-house, but both firms are perfectly happy to buy stuff in if it is cheaper, or if they have a shortage of capacity, or for any other good reason. Hoya will sell stuff to Perntax/Ricoh when the time comes, and be perfectly happy to do so.

[Falcons]

That is a flawed test for the Olympus.



I have been using sensor-based stabilization technology in Pentax and Oly ever since it was introduced nearly 5 years ago, alongside Canon and Nikon's in-lens IS systems. I was not as happy with the sensor stabilization of long focal lengths until I started using Canon's tele lenses.

I can safely say, along with other pros and amateurs - is that in-lens will WORK BETTER WITH LONG TELEPHOTOS - the constant IS adjustments you can see through the viewfinder as the camera and lens moves - is beneficial to the shooter. Whereas a sensor based IS system does not show a 'live' view of the IS in action and you can still see the image shaking until you have taken the shot. That was also mentioned in the test. Now, if that test is to be taken seriously, use more lenses and compare more systems.

Not to mention the stated stop improvements of 2.7 etc, nothing to boast about. It is also a given fact that a sensor based IS cannot match something akin to a 4 stop improvement on the latest IS systems.

I am no pro by any means but again even if the test is flawed iit is still a test and not an opinion. All I hear is opinions and no disrespect but if I had the time I could find all the other comments, i have read, from pro photographers who disagree with you and that is also just their opinion. I am just curious as to if there arte any tests that you believe aren't flawed that prove one way or another. To date I can only find opinions and advertorial rhetoric on the issue.

[Falcons]

The Tokina question sprang to my mind initially because Tokina have been manufacturing ( according to them ) for 55 years and they were under the umbrella group of Hoya.
The movements that have taken place recently have seen Kenko take on or absorb Tokina as one company and I think that there is/was a tie up with Slik tripods in there somewhere as well.
From an Australian perspective we now have a bit of a mixed distributor base for products from the same manufacturers with Pentax cameras, Kenko and Slik handled by one company and Hoya and Tokina products held by another company.
Meanwhile the present Australian distributors of Ricoh camera products are another company again which made me wonder where, if any, product rationalisation will end up here down under.

As for the lens sharing tech between Pentax & Tokina I am not sure which way that went. I have heard a few things about some Pentax lenses having been made by Tokina and rebadged and also the other way where some Tokina lenses were based entirely on Pentax products but as it stands now there doesn't seem to be any logical connection between Pentax and Tokina.

As far as I understand Hoyahas absolutely nothing to do with Tokina other than that they supply glass blanks for lenses (as they do for most lens manufacturers) the reason many believe that Hoya owns Tokina is that THK the US distributor distributes Hoya, Tokina and Kenko products and thus the myth began.

The pentax /tokina relationship is simply Pentax provides basically the recipe for lens formations and receives a payment i assume or royalty, and Tokina then wont produce that lens in a Pentax mount so Pentax has one less competitor for lens revenue.

[Kym]

That is the site for copiers etc, not for the camera distributors.

http://www.ricohcameras.com.au/ is also up

[Kym]

Not to mention the stated stop improvements of 2.7 etc, nothing to boast about. It is also a given fact that a sensor based IS cannot match something akin to a 4 stop improvement on the latest IS systems.

The K-5 SR (new) is rated to 4 stops

[I @ M]

http://www.ricohcameras.com.au/ is also up

and so it seems that the parent companies site has also been restored

[JM Tran]

All I hear is opinions and no disrespect but if I had the time I could find all the other comments, i have read, from pro photographers who disagree with you and that is also just their opinion.

show me, I am interested in reading their opinions. Did they forget that a sensor IS can never compensate as much as in-lens due to the limitations of the actual sensor moving on the X and Y axis, before it will start to affect the image?

When you have been using the Pentax and Oly in-body IS systems ever since they were introduced, alongside with Canon and Nikon for both work and fun - you can really tell a difference and know what works when and where. I am not someone like the infamous RiceHigh trolling the camera forums conducting tests and crunching numbers.

[Tannin]

Well, Falcons, you might like to refer to the empirical test of what the expert photographers actually use, and what the unquestioned top-quality gear is based on. And, when you look at top-quality systems for sport, long--lens paopparatzi stuf, and wildlife, we discover that 100% of the available systems on the market use in-lens stabilisation, despite the fact that the manufacturers have sensor shift technology at their fingertips, should they care to use it. That's not opinion, it's just cold fact. The only way to explain this without putting on a tinfoil had and resorting to conspiracy theory (secret pacts between giant companies, and the like) is to accept that in-lens works better for long lenses. (I carefully offer no opinion on the value of in-body stabilisation vs in-lens at shorter focal lengths like, say, 40mm - I have seen no real evidence on that either way.)

Plenty of room for the new Pentax to be a successful, serious camera & lens manufacturer, but I reckon they will be too smart to enter the long lens pro-level market. It is very doubtful that a third player could survive. Sony might have a go at it, if they feel like spending some of that vast pile of money the company has, but they would be most unlikely to succeed, even with their budget.

Nope: the way ahead for Pentax is to target the same market Pentax was so successful in in film days: enthusaists who like quality and value. Despite some along-the-way stupidities like red camera bodies and the absurd Q, on the whole Pentax has done pretty well. I reckon that Ricoh-Pentax will do even better.

[I @ M]

the reason many believe that Hoya owns Tokina is that THK the US distributor distributes Hoya, Tokina and Kenko products and thus the myth began.

I wasn't actually going on the US distribution even if they appear to be closely related, I was referring to their umbrella partnership with Hoya that began back in 1990 as I thought that they were pretty much the same company after that.

It is always a bit hard to follow who owns what from the Japanese side of things.

[Falcons]

Well, Falcons, you might like to refer to the empirical test of what the expert photographers actually use, and what the unquestioned top-quality gear is based on. And, when you look at top-quality systems for sport, long--lens paopparatzi stuf, and wildlife, we discover that 100% of the available systems on the market use in-lens stabilisation, despite the fact that the manufacturers have sensor shift technology at their fingertips, should they care to use it. That's not opinion, it's just cold fact. The only way to explain this without putting on a tinfoil had and resorting to conspiracy theory (secret pacts between giant companies, and the like) is to accept that in-lens works better for long lenses. (I carefully offer no opinion on the value of in-body stabilisation vs in-lens at shorter focal lengths like, say, 40mm - I have seen no real evidence on that either way.)

Plenty of room for the new Pentax to be a successful, serious camera & lens manufacturer, but I reckon they will be too smart to enter the long lens pro-level market. It is very doubtful that a third player could survive. Sony might have a go at it, if they feel like spending some of that vast pile of money the company has, but they would be most unlikely to succeed, even with their budget.

Nope: the way ahead for Pentax is to target the same market Pentax was so successful in in film days: enthusaists who like quality and value. Despite some along-the-way stupidities like red camera bodies and the absurd Q, on the whole Pentax has done pretty well. I reckon that Ricoh-Pentax will do even better.

*removed : this comment was nothing more than baiting, which breaches the site rules : admin *, not disagreeing with you Pentax doesn't make stuff for the camera professions you mentiioned but just because Canikon put their IS in lens doesn't automatically make it better. Once again you are just giving me the usual Canikon do it so it must be better. I just asked if there is a test that backs this up or not you may be right iit may be bette - r just because I don't bliindly accept canikon advertising does not make me a conspiracy nut. Technology is changing all the time and if electric view finders become the norm then the in lens IS system loses its asdvantage of the viewfinder showing the stabilised image.

I am know ricehigh either but there are counter opinions out there one is that the in lens IS distorts the lens formula giving a harsher bokeh this may be a problem for you or it may not but it is someones opinion not a conspiracy theory.

[Kym]

Warning: This thread is going off topic and contains a lot of speculation with little facts in some cases.

Everyone, please take a chill pill!

[arthurking83]

...... I haven't seen any hard evidence eitrher way just advertising rhetoric from both camps. Here is a link http://www.slrgear.com/articles/is_o...0_SLR_Body.htm to a test done that concluded "While we can't generalize from one camera's test results to all sensor-based IS systems, the performance of the Olympus E-520's IS system certainly demonstrated that there's no inherent reason why sensor-based IS systems should underperform lens-based ones."

.....

Not that someone with Tony's experience and knowledge requires backup(from the likes of me, of all people), but the evidence you were after, Falcons, is right there in front of your nose(in the link to SLR Gear you posted)!!!

Quoted from SLRGear(just below the tabled results with the 50 and 150mm lenses)

One difference we did notice with the E-520 vs. lens-based IS systems we've tested is that it achieved greater shake reduction at shorter focal lengths than at longer ones. Most lens-based systems we've tested trend in the other direction, showing more improvement at longer focal lengths.

Ummmm
I don't know about anyone else, but the bolded sections (which I made bold) are pretty much self explanatory to me ... lens based systems provide greater advantage at longer focal lengths.

Another important consideration to factor into the mix as well is as focal lengths get longer, limitations begin to creep into the camera based system's ability to provide efficient stabilisation.
This is common knowledge for those that seek it, and SLR Gear also make this statement... immediately before the SLRGear statement quoted by Falcons in her post.
The quoted text from SLRGear, that Falcons posted is in fact referring to focal length(or equivalences) up to 300mm, and not beyond(as Tony claimed).

Now I can't edit the SLRGear article in any way to make it easier to read, but I've tried to make it as easy to find as I could, and I suggest you re read it for yourself.

COMMON KNOWLEDGE FACT #1: lens based IS systems are more efficient at LONGER focal lengths. Camera based systems appear to be more effective at shorter focal lengths.


Not only is Kym right:

Warning: This thread is going off topic and contains a lot of speculation with little facts in some cases.

Everyone, please take a chill pill!

... but hopefully now the thread will now get back on track!
(if we want a thread explaining the differences in efficiency between lens and camera based stabilisation systems, then someone would be wise to create a new thread.