All Forum Comments
Comment by Critical-i posted on First production review of K-7 at 22/06/2009 - 23:53
BODYHEAT wrote:
thanks Steve, but my monitor is calibrated, but we're not talking RAW here but JPGs which should look great straight out of the camera and not need any PP
Thats odd - the default K20D shots look great on my monitor. Could you post something so we can see what it looks like on ours?thanks Steve, but my monitor is calibrated, but we're not talking RAW here but JPGs which should look great straight out of the camera and not need any PP
Comment by Critical-i posted on First production review of K-7 at 22/06/2009 - 17:12
BODYHEAT wrote:
Quote: "Additionally the camera’s LCD screen equates image playback entirely different to computer screens – as tested on laptops and calibrated monitors. It’s a disappointment when an apparently well-exposed image in-camera reveals itself to be underexposed on screen. This then takes working into, and adds to time – an issue that the K20D also had. Really and truly shots should come straight from camera with little to no fuss."
I am new to digital and this is an issue I am having with my K20D. I took a load of shots for my website last night and they looked fine on the LCD but on my monitor all seemed underexposed or as if they had some sort of grey fog over the whole picture. I read somethign about this in the other pentaxforums and they said Pentax wasn't underexposing just not blowing out the whites. I get that, but white? this is like underwear thats gone grey.
Has anyone got any tips how to deal with it? Do you set the EV to automatically compensate by one third, two thirds, a full stop? or how do you deal with it in the K20D so what you see on the LCD is more or less what you see on your computer screen?
May be a dumb question but have you calibrated your monitor? Quote: "Additionally the camera’s LCD screen equates image playback entirely different to computer screens – as tested on laptops and calibrated monitors. It’s a disappointment when an apparently well-exposed image in-camera reveals itself to be underexposed on screen. This then takes working into, and adds to time – an issue that the K20D also had. Really and truly shots should come straight from camera with little to no fuss."
I am new to digital and this is an issue I am having with my K20D. I took a load of shots for my website last night and they looked fine on the LCD but on my monitor all seemed underexposed or as if they had some sort of grey fog over the whole picture. I read somethign about this in the other pentaxforums and they said Pentax wasn't underexposing just not blowing out the whites. I get that, but white? this is like underwear thats gone grey.
Has anyone got any tips how to deal with it? Do you set the EV to automatically compensate by one third, two thirds, a full stop? or how do you deal with it in the K20D so what you see on the LCD is more or less what you see on your computer screen?
If you have, most cameras err on the lowish contrast side to maximise dynamic range - especially in the RAW image. I usually add a healthy contrast boost in PP.
Comment by Critical-i posted on First production review of K-7 at 22/06/2009 - 01:33
Rees wrote:
Regarding Jessops disappearance, bad news for all, in a Daily Telegraph article 25th April 09 David Adams is revamping the ailing dealership, with sales rising and their sponsors HSBC and Jessops are now in a process which is likely to end with a positive outcome. Jessops climb back started a few weeks ago with the London Oxford Street branch having a £300,000 refurbishment and is the likely blue print for further stores.
So as they say watch this space!
Funny refurb - they reduced retail space by 50% by turning the ground floor into some kind of training centre. In the meantime dont bother trying to buy any acccessories, they stock a minimal range of bags, tripods etc. compared to what they used to stock.Regarding Jessops disappearance, bad news for all, in a Daily Telegraph article 25th April 09 David Adams is revamping the ailing dealership, with sales rising and their sponsors HSBC and Jessops are now in a process which is likely to end with a positive outcome. Jessops climb back started a few weeks ago with the London Oxford Street branch having a £300,000 refurbishment and is the likely blue print for further stores.
So as they say watch this space!
If this refurb cost 300k, my flat looks like good value!
Comment by Critical-i posted on Is Pentax to disappear? at 27/04/2009 - 02:56
Shaky wrote:
I am sure you know much more about cameras than I do and have had first hand knowledge of Pentax for significantly longer. With the further proviso that I have never done any comprehensive or even systematic analysis on the company or industry, I question your diagnosis that Pentax’s historical problem was excessive debt.
I have no idea whether they entered the medical equipment business organically or through acquisition but this tends to be a stable, fairly high margin business. Only if they acquired and overpaid should it have created any difficulty.
Actually at the time of the takeover the medical products devision was posting declining profits in the face of increased competition and this was partly the thinking behind Sparx's willingness to sell and Hoya's decision to merge it with their own. I am sure you know much more about cameras than I do and have had first hand knowledge of Pentax for significantly longer. With the further proviso that I have never done any comprehensive or even systematic analysis on the company or industry, I question your diagnosis that Pentax’s historical problem was excessive debt.
I have no idea whether they entered the medical equipment business organically or through acquisition but this tends to be a stable, fairly high margin business. Only if they acquired and overpaid should it have created any difficulty.
Quote:
Therefore if a debt service problem in fact existed it seems much more likely to have been caused by poor camera business operating performance, which is consistent with my understanding of the declining market position of the company; from what I gather this started in the early 90s and culminated in their disastrous failure to anticipate the rapid near total substitution of film for digital early this decade.
I think it had more to do with the complete failure of their initial 6MP full frame digital SLR actually. They did not anticipate the rapid uptake of APS SLRs, nor did they anticipate the rapid price drop that Canon managed with the 300D, nor did they have access to a sensor (Nikon had preferential access to Sony sensors, which was a real problem for Pentax and Minolta (at least until they were acquired). Therefore if a debt service problem in fact existed it seems much more likely to have been caused by poor camera business operating performance, which is consistent with my understanding of the declining market position of the company; from what I gather this started in the early 90s and culminated in their disastrous failure to anticipate the rapid near total substitution of film for digital early this decade.
Also, by the time they were taken over, the low end digicam market was also showing profit decline due to market saturation and cost cutting.
Quote:
Without having looked at the complete set of accounts, it seems to me as if the camera business has been unprofitable since the late 90s. In roughly the same period their relative position in the total slr market has gone from a medium volume, high end/high margin supplier to low volume, bottom end/low margin.
Actually they were a low volume supplier for longer than that. Pentax trailed even Minolta for some time on SLRs.Without having looked at the complete set of accounts, it seems to me as if the camera business has been unprofitable since the late 90s. In roughly the same period their relative position in the total slr market has gone from a medium volume, high end/high margin supplier to low volume, bottom end/low margin.
Quote:
As I see it the decline of Pentax is due solely to their spectacular failure to read the market, with any debt issues an effect rather than the cause.
Chicken and egg. Getting into a loss making situation is one thing, having to service debt just makes the recovery harder. The management that presided over the situation have gone (both Pentax board and Sparx). Hence my contention that they have effectively got a clean sheet as long as they can start to generate some revenue from the business.As I see it the decline of Pentax is due solely to their spectacular failure to read the market, with any debt issues an effect rather than the cause.
Quote:
I am also sceptical of your contention regarding Pentax’s cost structure. Clearly Vietnam is superficially low cost but there is more than ample anecdotal evidence of poor quality control, which must be costing them dearly in terms of fulfilling warranty claims in predominantly high cost end markets.
Actually, so far this only appears to have affected 2 lenses (they are not unique in this respect). In one case there were reports of decentering issues with early batches, and in the second common failure of the (brand new) focus mechanism. Neither failure was related hence the "issue" was not systemic. In both cases the information I have was that it was problems with some component suppliers that caused the issues. I am also sceptical of your contention regarding Pentax’s cost structure. Clearly Vietnam is superficially low cost but there is more than ample anecdotal evidence of poor quality control, which must be costing them dearly in terms of fulfilling warranty claims in predominantly high cost end markets.
By contrast, the 16-45, 12-24, and other DA lenses have been pretty trouble free including the 200 and 300. All are made in Vietnam.
But on the issue of costs, Pentax HO and R&D is in Japan and thats it. They have major technical input from Samsung that must cover some or all of the development costs for joint models and lenses and provides access to DDR2 RAM, sensors etc. at competitive prices.
At the same time, one of their major suppliers of optical glass is now their parent company. Yes I think they are potentially in a very strong position, if they can capitalise on it.
Quote:
And without knowing much about Vietnam or indeed the lens production process specifically, I have more than enough experience of frontier market manufacturing capacity elsewhere to realise these types of quality control issues are by no means easily fixable. For example I have worked with engineering firms making something as basic as steel structures with relatively wide tolerances in China, that spent years trying and failing to get quality control right.
You may be right in some cases, however outsourcing final assembly of consumer goods where all components are shipped in and assembled on brand new assembly lines is not the same as making the components (or structures) locally using local techniques, foundries and machine tools. And without knowing much about Vietnam or indeed the lens production process specifically, I have more than enough experience of frontier market manufacturing capacity elsewhere to realise these types of quality control issues are by no means easily fixable. For example I have worked with engineering firms making something as basic as steel structures with relatively wide tolerances in China, that spent years trying and failing to get quality control right.
Steel quality issues have been a recurring theme, not just in China but in some older Eastern European plants too, because their steel plants were in some cases 40-50 years out of date and needed complete replacement.
Hoya itself has operating units in Vietnam and the K20D is made in the Philippines. I am pretty sure that they do not have any more issues than Canon or Nikon models of similar price.
Quote:
It is also noteworthy that problems appear to be getting worse, with the latest 16-50 model quite clearly suffering unacceptably high levels of returns. I think you might also ask Samsung why they appear to source lenses elsewhere.
Samsung source lenses elsewhere? How? Pentax make all of them AFAIK. It is also noteworthy that problems appear to be getting worse, with the latest 16-50 model quite clearly suffering unacceptably high levels of returns. I think you might also ask Samsung why they appear to source lenses elsewhere.
Most QC issues have been resolved apparently but old batches are still sitting on shelves so issues do continue to come up. However, people who have bought some of these lenses more recently have had no issues.
Quote:
Admittedly widespread adverse publicity regarding quality may be creating a negative feedback loop where greater warranty claims result in a greater defect detection rates relative to alternative suppliers. However, this dynamic must itself be seriously undermining the softer perceived quality benefits of the Pentax brand you mention.
I don’t recall precisely where I read this but I am sure Hoya have publically stated that the business plan target for cameras is a return to profitability around the end of their March financial year, I believe either Q4 or /Q1.
Where did you read that? I understood it was a three year recovery plan. One year would be impossible, as they would already be in the middle of a cycle and would not be able to change anything.Admittedly widespread adverse publicity regarding quality may be creating a negative feedback loop where greater warranty claims result in a greater defect detection rates relative to alternative suppliers. However, this dynamic must itself be seriously undermining the softer perceived quality benefits of the Pentax brand you mention.
I don’t recall precisely where I read this but I am sure Hoya have publically stated that the business plan target for cameras is a return to profitability around the end of their March financial year, I believe either Q4 or /Q1.
I have never seen any recovery plan that expected return to profitability within a year in any manufacturing operation as its simply not possible. New products are at least 2 years from conception to market and can only accommodate a radical change in strategy up to 12 months (or more) prior to launch, and then generally you need at least a year's revenue to indicate whether the strategy is successful.
In year 1 you normally restructure the business, reduce costs, increase efficiency and agree a new product strategy which you start to implement.
In year 2 you may if you are lucky ship products that only required minor modification to fit with the strategy and cancel a few others that dont.
In year 3 you will start shipping products that are part of your new strategy. By this time your restructured business should be working well and your new efficient market channels will be operational. Only after a few months after shipping your new products can you really tell if you have "made it" in any serious way.
All this is entirely consistent with the changes and announcements they have already made.
Quote:
Assuming the latter - and the relatively safe bet that market deterioration will cause a slip in financial performance -gives a timeframe of early August for Hoya management to decide whether the loss of face is greater exiting the business or backtracking on what is in effect a stop-loss operating target.
Sorry, but I still dont agree this is a given and it does not tally with the current energy that Hoya are expending on Pentax. Hoya are contracting output and costs to accommodate the recession I am sure, who isnt, but they are also planning products 2-3 years ahead as well. This is quite tricky of course but as they are aiming for a niche market they have less of a challenge than brands that rely on mass consumer sales. I have not seen even the most miserable estimate that thinks we will not be starting to emerge from the recession in 3 years from now.Assuming the latter - and the relatively safe bet that market deterioration will cause a slip in financial performance -gives a timeframe of early August for Hoya management to decide whether the loss of face is greater exiting the business or backtracking on what is in effect a stop-loss operating target.
Comment by Critical-i posted on Is Pentax to disappear? at 22/02/2009 - 19:42
Shaky wrote:
Critical,
I am reluctant to respond to your last post since I feel the discussion is veering off topic but I can not let this slide:
Actually its quite on topic really since were talking about survival. Critical,
I am reluctant to respond to your last post since I feel the discussion is veering off topic but I can not let this slide:
Quote:
In order for it to be valid you would need to show some degree of contra-cyclicality between the camera business and the rest of Hoya, which is substantially semiconductor equipment measured in operating returns. Good luck with that; in fact the only hedging going on there is the Texas variety.
Firstly I was talking about Hoya as a whole which engages in several markets and several product lines which have completely different business cycles.Critical-i wrote:
Diversity is a good safe long term strategy and having a mixed portfolio of products and markets is not always a bad idea. In the short term it makes stocks harder to predict (which analysts hate so they undervalue such companies in an upturn) but in the long term makes them far more resistant to market fluctuation. Its like hedging.
As with any generalisation there is some truth in this, but in relation to the specific Hoya/Pentax relationship under discussion your line of argument is - in the kindest possible terms - completely unsustainable.Diversity is a good safe long term strategy and having a mixed portfolio of products and markets is not always a bad idea. In the short term it makes stocks harder to predict (which analysts hate so they undervalue such companies in an upturn) but in the long term makes them far more resistant to market fluctuation. Its like hedging.
In order for it to be valid you would need to show some degree of contra-cyclicality between the camera business and the rest of Hoya, which is substantially semiconductor equipment measured in operating returns. Good luck with that; in fact the only hedging going on there is the Texas variety.
Secondly I said diversity, I was not referring to hedging in the literal banking sense, though in a general worldwide recession there is no contra-cyclicity unless you have a sideline in liquidations, funeral care or arms dealing.
Quote:
Separately I must say I find it more than a little bizarre that you tar the consulting profession with one brush while appearing to serve up sell-side analyst ratings as some kind of prophetic utterance.
True, no generalisation is ever justified, but not many sell-side analysts would recommend stocks in the current market. But in truth, I have more respect for some PE houses I have worked with who invested their own money and brought in excellent management teams to effect turnarounds in some apparent basket case companies. Separately I must say I find it more than a little bizarre that you tar the consulting profession with one brush while appearing to serve up sell-side analyst ratings as some kind of prophetic utterance.
Of course they never were complete basket cases if you looked carefully under the hood and saw beyond the fundamentals, and once relieved of a debt burden built up by previously incompetent management, and restructured around a viable business strategy, some became very successful even during major downturns (1990, dotcom bust etc). (Sound familiar?)
And yes, I was a consultant on some of those deals and worked as a specialist with some excellent advisory teams, but that did nothing to give me faith in the rest of my profession whose operational comprehension was frequently "lacking".
Quote:
Look, I have no interest whatsoever in seeing Pentax fail - in fact quite the contrary - but I think their current situation is objectively summarised as follows:
* Chronically loss-making
* Lousy competitive position
* Now collapsing end market
You don’t have to be a partner at Bain to realise they are in deep, deep trouble; no responsible management team would ever acquire what is quite obviously a business in need of a turnaround without setting hard targets, and achieving those in the current market climate is undoubtedly going to be much harder than originally anticipated, going on impossible.
With the greatest respect, that is not an assessment we are in a position to make. Look, I have no interest whatsoever in seeing Pentax fail - in fact quite the contrary - but I think their current situation is objectively summarised as follows:
* Chronically loss-making
* Lousy competitive position
* Now collapsing end market
You don’t have to be a partner at Bain to realise they are in deep, deep trouble; no responsible management team would ever acquire what is quite obviously a business in need of a turnaround without setting hard targets, and achieving those in the current market climate is undoubtedly going to be much harder than originally anticipated, going on impossible.
Clearly Pentax as an independent would no longer be viable, but Hoya understood what they were taking on, and downsized Pentax at a very opportune time, just as Nikon, Canon and Sony were spending their way into a market share bun-fight, for which I suspect they will pay heavily.
One could with equal justification take a more optimistic view. Its historic chronic loss making position is not really relevant any more as the management and board have been dismantled, its debts paid off (this was the main constraint limiting previous business srategies) and its cost base rationalised.
Its "lousy" competitive position is unknown (recent reports of 1.5% are not substantiated) but to be honest in a downturn, market share is not the primary guarantee of survival in any event, its simply how quickly you can reduce costs to match plummeting sales.
The fact that they are a very small part of a much larger company makes them safer, in a relative sense, than a division on which the parent company is heavily reliant for a large proportion of its short term income.
And indeed there is a collapsing end market, but again this is a blanket statement and the devil is in the details.
General consumers in this type of market lose interest in the latest and greatest new shiney thing (hard luck Canon and Sony) but no true enthusiast will give up their greatest pleasure (they will go without a new car or house, but not I suspect a new lens) provided they perceive value in what they buy, and value in a recession is frequently associated with attributes like build quality, longevity etc. rather than the spec sheet madness that dominates bull market conditions (and which costs a lot to develop and implement).
Whoever identifies the new niche markets best will survive I suspect, and this is one sector of the market where Pentax have retained a loyal following and made new friends since the K10D at least. Its also one they are well positioned to exploit while the rest focus on cost cutting.
Of course a lot depends on whether Hoya itself survives and what drain Pentax turns out to be on the bottom line, but none of us know the answer to that or whats on the mind of Hoyas board.
Quote:
Hoya now have the choice of relaxing those targets or cutting their losses, and I believe which way they go will depend on the perceived attractiveness of new product development. However, if you read through Hoya’s results they already appear to have taken substantial write-offs as well as sacked a load of people in Japan, which are the kind of steps you would need to take to clear the way for a disposal. . . or closure.
Actually, you would take the same steps if you were restructuring the business as a niche player focusing on a narrow based product strategy. Hoya have released perfectly clear hints about what that strategy is, and even if they have relaxed the timescales slightly, I dont see why they would give up just yet.Hoya now have the choice of relaxing those targets or cutting their losses, and I believe which way they go will depend on the perceived attractiveness of new product development. However, if you read through Hoya’s results they already appear to have taken substantial write-offs as well as sacked a load of people in Japan, which are the kind of steps you would need to take to clear the way for a disposal. . . or closure.
After all this is a lousy time to sell a loss making subsidiary, and closure would be a massive loss of face (very much a last resort).
Reading between the lines I suspect that, in least in SLRs, Pentax has one of the lowest cost bases in the industry thanks to its offshore manufacturing base, internal supply lines and cooperation with Tokina and Samsung to offset much of the development costs. All they need is a sensible, coherent product strategy thats consistent with market realities - something they have failed miserably to achieve for years. Hoya it seems is putting a stop to that.
In general I like the small, robust, outdoors, weather proof idea quite a lot since thats where I am, mostly. Outdoors. And in the UK it rains a lot. However I think ventures into FF, 1.3 crop or square sensors is a load of wishful thinking.
Comment by Critical-i posted on Is Pentax to disappear? at 20/02/2009 - 08:40
viewfinder wrote:
Any micro4/3 camera will NOT have a pentax K mount but it will not be a problem as the beauty of micro4/3 is that adaptors are easilly made for any lens.
Sadly this does not guarantee full functionality with any lens. Many Oly lenses do not work fully or at all with the G1 adaptor.Any micro4/3 camera will NOT have a pentax K mount but it will not be a problem as the beauty of micro4/3 is that adaptors are easilly made for any lens.
I would suspect Samsung would opt for an electronic shutter control too, hence the adapter would have to carry a motor to actuate the aperture lever on the Pentax lens. Not impossible of course.
Comment by Critical-i posted on K3D* rumour with 1.3x crop factor at 19/02/2009 - 01:57
Gwyn wrote:
Well the news I hear is a new K30D will have the same sensor as the K20D, just more bells and whistles attached, Samsung are also coming with the equivalent. It will be announced in Spring. They are both also planning a K300d, maybe with the same sensor again.
More interestingly, if they use the Pentax fit for it, is the Samsung micro 4/3rds camera that is promised for later this year. I cannot imagine they would go with a different lens fitting for it, but I suppose they may do.
It would be a perfect in pocket walkaround.
That sounds a lot more likely, though I suspect the 14.6 MP sensor has had a lot of development since the K20D.Well the news I hear is a new K30D will have the same sensor as the K20D, just more bells and whistles attached, Samsung are also coming with the equivalent. It will be announced in Spring. They are both also planning a K300d, maybe with the same sensor again.
More interestingly, if they use the Pentax fit for it, is the Samsung micro 4/3rds camera that is promised for later this year. I cannot imagine they would go with a different lens fitting for it, but I suppose they may do.
It would be a perfect in pocket walkaround.
Comment by Critical-i posted on K3D* rumour with 1.3x crop factor at 18/02/2009 - 10:23
A lot of what was peddled by management consultants in the last 20 years was complete BS (none of them had ever run so much as a corner shop) but then I was one for a while.
Diversity is a good safe long term strategy and having a mixed portfolio of products and markets is not always a bad idea. In the short term it makes stocks harder to predict (which analysts hate so they undervalue such companies in an upturn) but in the long term makes them far more resistant to market fluctuation. Its like hedging.
The result - latest stock ratings...
Hoya - upgraded to buy
Nikon -downgraded to hold
Sony - sell like hell....
And I dont agree that any company can be complacent about survival any more, it depends entirely how much flexibility they have to shed cost and how exposed they are to the ability to extend existing credit. And none of us really know the answer to that.
Diversity is a good safe long term strategy and having a mixed portfolio of products and markets is not always a bad idea. In the short term it makes stocks harder to predict (which analysts hate so they undervalue such companies in an upturn) but in the long term makes them far more resistant to market fluctuation. Its like hedging.
The result - latest stock ratings...
Hoya - upgraded to buy
Nikon -downgraded to hold
Sony - sell like hell....
And I dont agree that any company can be complacent about survival any more, it depends entirely how much flexibility they have to shed cost and how exposed they are to the ability to extend existing credit. And none of us really know the answer to that.
Shaky wrote:
In comparison Hoya’s much smaller sales (1/8 x Cannon) cover a vertical industry ‘focus’ including:
* Semiconductor Equipment: Photomasks
* Industrial Equipment/Instrumentation: Photonics
* Computer Equipment/Storage: Hard disk components
* Medical Equipment: Endoscopes
* Medical Supplies: Spectacle lenses, lenses for the treatment of cataracts
* Specialty Retail: Contact lenses
** Consumer Electronics: Pentax Cameras & accessories
There was a long period in the early 1990s when large parts of the Financial PR industry was continuously engaged in brainstorming luncheons on behalf of conglomerate clients demanding some kind of unifying concept that would make a sprawling assortment of disparate portfolio businesses appear coherent and judiciously assembled.
In that spirit it is semantically correct to say that Hoya’s businesses all involve the use of specialty glass but so do space shuttles and double glazing, and there’s about as much industrial logic combining those two under common management as there is in Hoya’s portfolio.
As for their profitability this stems largely from a strong position in Photomasks. However, in reporting quarterly results last week leading chip equipment maker Applied Materials announced demand had fallen off a cliff and “. . .semiconductor customers say that the fall-off in chip demand and pricing is the most severe they have ever experienced. Losses are mounting almost universally".
Much has changed in the corporate world in Japan in the last few years (eg an Anglo-American CEO of Sony) and I have no doubt that Hoya will be under heavy pressure from shareholders to focus on core profitability/do something restructuring related. Disposing of the camera business could be an easy option in more ways than one.
BTW, it is true that Nikon is also small with a somewhat sprawling portfolio but as the #1 in cameras they are obviously not going to exit that business.
Critical-i wrote:
I dont see how Canon's portfolio is "tighter" per se? Photocopiers and printers are not particularly related to cameras.
I agree with your last sentence completely. However, Canon’s non-camera product portfolio is largely related, with significant synergies in design, production, sales, marketing & distribution, and aftermarket between photocopiers, printers, fax machines, etc. In industry terms it is all office equipment.I dont see how Canon's portfolio is "tighter" per se? Photocopiers and printers are not particularly related to cameras.
In comparison Hoya’s much smaller sales (1/8 x Cannon) cover a vertical industry ‘focus’ including:
* Semiconductor Equipment: Photomasks
* Industrial Equipment/Instrumentation: Photonics
* Computer Equipment/Storage: Hard disk components
* Medical Equipment: Endoscopes
* Medical Supplies: Spectacle lenses, lenses for the treatment of cataracts
* Specialty Retail: Contact lenses
** Consumer Electronics: Pentax Cameras & accessories
There was a long period in the early 1990s when large parts of the Financial PR industry was continuously engaged in brainstorming luncheons on behalf of conglomerate clients demanding some kind of unifying concept that would make a sprawling assortment of disparate portfolio businesses appear coherent and judiciously assembled.
In that spirit it is semantically correct to say that Hoya’s businesses all involve the use of specialty glass but so do space shuttles and double glazing, and there’s about as much industrial logic combining those two under common management as there is in Hoya’s portfolio.
As for their profitability this stems largely from a strong position in Photomasks. However, in reporting quarterly results last week leading chip equipment maker Applied Materials announced demand had fallen off a cliff and “. . .semiconductor customers say that the fall-off in chip demand and pricing is the most severe they have ever experienced. Losses are mounting almost universally".
Much has changed in the corporate world in Japan in the last few years (eg an Anglo-American CEO of Sony) and I have no doubt that Hoya will be under heavy pressure from shareholders to focus on core profitability/do something restructuring related. Disposing of the camera business could be an easy option in more ways than one.
BTW, it is true that Nikon is also small with a somewhat sprawling portfolio but as the #1 in cameras they are obviously not going to exit that business.
Comment by Critical-i posted on Is Pentax to disappear? at 18/02/2009 - 01:16
Number of employees
Canon 131,000
Hoya 35,000
Nikon 25,000
Market Capitalisation
Canon $35B
Hoya $8B
Nikon $4B
Canon may be the biggest, but Hoya is bigger than Nikon and more profitable. I dont see how Canon's portfolio is "tighter" per se? Photocopiers and printers are not particularly related to cameras. All Hoyas business are however based on the manufacture of specialist glass.
Canon 131,000
Hoya 35,000
Nikon 25,000
Market Capitalisation
Canon $35B
Hoya $8B
Nikon $4B
Canon may be the biggest, but Hoya is bigger than Nikon and more profitable. I dont see how Canon's portfolio is "tighter" per se? Photocopiers and printers are not particularly related to cameras. All Hoyas business are however based on the manufacture of specialist glass.
Shaky wrote:
Secondly, I’m sorry to say I have yet to see anybody posting on the actual Pentax/Hoya relationship possessing any real degree of understanding of this. In this context the original Nikkei report of the euphemistically termed merger is highly instructive: http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english/NEWS_EN/20061222/125787/
Please note the emphasis is pretty much exclusively on the Pentax medical equipment business, which is much more attuned with Hoya’s high tech focus.
As for discussions regarding the camera business, not only is this way down the agenda but it is also long on metaphors of eastern mystery and short on specific assurances. The bottom line:
All indications now suggest the digital camera market is cratering and with undoubted problems elsewhere in Hoya’s business portfolio I’d be very surprised if their management have the time and capital to underwrite Pentax much longer. If they decide to cut their losses what happens to the Pentax brand is anybody’s guess, with the path of rapid resale typically a slippery slope.
However, as regards the OP if you have a significant investment in Pentax lenses built up over the years buying a newish digital body now is a nevertheless a reasonably rational option to safeguard that investment.
loskeran wrote:
Hoya now own Pentax and have spent quite a lot of money, I don’t think they will let the brand go
First of all it is critical to understand that Hoya is in nowhere near the same league as even a mid tier company like Canon, which is 5 times larger in stock market value terms, and has a much tighter product portfolio. Hoya are not quite what the Americans call a small cap but they are not far off at all.Hoya now own Pentax and have spent quite a lot of money, I don’t think they will let the brand go
Secondly, I’m sorry to say I have yet to see anybody posting on the actual Pentax/Hoya relationship possessing any real degree of understanding of this. In this context the original Nikkei report of the euphemistically termed merger is highly instructive: http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english/NEWS_EN/20061222/125787/
Please note the emphasis is pretty much exclusively on the Pentax medical equipment business, which is much more attuned with Hoya’s high tech focus.
As for discussions regarding the camera business, not only is this way down the agenda but it is also long on metaphors of eastern mystery and short on specific assurances. The bottom line:
Quote:
“I think Hoya will be able to do for the camera business no more than injecting its knowledge for management.”
Hoya CEO Hiroshi Suzuki
A rapidly growing market can mask a multitude of operational sins, with even poor competitive performers able to satisfy the stock market’s desire for volume and sales growth. “I think Hoya will be able to do for the camera business no more than injecting its knowledge for management.”
Hoya CEO Hiroshi Suzuki
All indications now suggest the digital camera market is cratering and with undoubted problems elsewhere in Hoya’s business portfolio I’d be very surprised if their management have the time and capital to underwrite Pentax much longer. If they decide to cut their losses what happens to the Pentax brand is anybody’s guess, with the path of rapid resale typically a slippery slope.
However, as regards the OP if you have a significant investment in Pentax lenses built up over the years buying a newish digital body now is a nevertheless a reasonably rational option to safeguard that investment.
Comment by Critical-i posted on Is Pentax to disappear? at 14/02/2009 - 03:07
Review edited AGAIN, video text now changed!
And a response from the editor!
In response to some negative comments about this Pentax K-7 review we would like to clarify a few points. Firstly, the camera reviewed was given to What Digital Camera as a "full production model" directly from Pentax UK and contained the very latest firmware (version 1.00) at the time of testing. Today however, it has been announced that Pentax may be altering its sensor before this goes on sale, presumably recognising themselves that some improvements can be made. We appreciate all comments about our reviews and have clarified a few points, including the line that claimed that this was the first Pentax to feature a battery grip. What it should have said is that the D-BG4 is the first Pentax DSLR battery grip to offer a choice of AA battery or rechargeable Li-ion use. Our review of the K-7 is generally very positive and this is reflected in its 86% score, and What Digital Camera Recommended Award. However, a camera that is due to cost £1199 in the UK ($1975 USD as of 22/6/09) should expect to be pulled up on its shortcomings, especially when other cameras in this price bracket do not suffer the same afflictions. We appreciate photographers are very passionate about their cameras and have strong brand loyalty but we strive to offer fair independent testing to all the cameras we test and feel it is more honest to point out any faults than find ways to overcome them. If the camera is now due to be updated before its launch we will amend our review once we have used the new version.