Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
On 5/31/07, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I also heard some really scary stories of baskets catching fire during > flight when cheap fuel lines ruptured.. A similar sort of thing happend to an Australian navy replenishment vessel. They had a fuel leak due to non-approved type fuel hoses being used. Several crew were killed in the resulting fire, and a few more died from the engine room fire suppression system. Cheers, Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
- Original Message - From: "David Savage" Subject: Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but... > Yeah, and the bolts that hold the wings on can be substituted for some > found at your local hardware store. The balloon that I flew years ago used what appeared to be the same type of fuel line as was used for propane barbecues, and I know of several pilots from less strict jurisdictions that used cheap fuel lines rather than the expensive ones sold by the balloon manufacturer, and approved for aircraft use. I also heard some really scary stories of baskets catching fire during flight when cheap fuel lines ruptured.. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
Yeah, and the bolts that hold the wings on can be substituted for some found at your local hardware store. Cheers, Dave On 5/28/07, graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I remember when the alternator for a Cessna 172 cost $600. Except for the FAA > inspection tag it was exactly the same alternator as in the Olds Cutlass of > the same year which cost $44. So, you guys, go ahead and believe what ever > you want. > > Just remember that car prices more than doubled when they had to put the $600 > worth of government mandated crap in them. "You have got to have this, it is > the law, so we can charge you through the nose for it because you have no > choice." What do you think auto liability insurance would cost if it was > optional? > > -- > graywolf > http://www.graywolfphoto.com > http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf > "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" > --- > > > David Savage wrote: > > On 5/24/07, Cory Papenfuss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Citing examples of consumer-grade electronics failing often negate > >> the original assumption of properly and correctly designed with decent > >> components. Take a piece of aircraft avionics they live in a > >> *horrible* environment with heat/cold/vibration/shock/corrosion and last > >> literally for decades. The failures are almost always mechanical, not > >> electrical, and are due to the bad environment. > > > > Having helped change avionics, and seen what these components cost, > > any company that designed consumer products to this standard would be > > a small niche player, or out of business. > > > > I remember almost falling over when I was told the cost of the fuel > > flow transducer on a PT6 engine. > > > > Also aircraft have more stringent regular maintenance checks than do > > consumer products. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Dave > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
- Original Message - From: "Cory Papenfuss" Subject: Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but... >> >> The subject is consumer grade electronics. >> >> William Robb >> > Actually, the subject was "electronics." If you'd like to > interpret that as "consumer electronics," feel free. In the broder sense, > "electronics" are extremely reliable if properly designed. > Whatever, this is a camera list, not a military hardware list (thankfully). By definition, we are dealing with consumer grade electronics here. You are, of course, free to interpret things the way you like. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
>> >> Citing examples of consumer-grade electronics failing often negate >> the original assumption of properly and correctly designed with decent >> components. Take a piece of aircraft avionics they live in a >> *horrible* environment with heat/cold/vibration/shock/corrosion and last >> literally for decades. The failures are almost always mechanical, not >> electrical, and are due to the bad environment. > > The subject is consumer grade electronics. > > William Robb > Actually, the subject was "electronics." If you'd like to interpret that as "consumer electronics," feel free. In the broder sense, "electronics" are extremely reliable if properly designed. -Cory -- * * Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA * * Electrical Engineering* * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University * * -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
I remember when the alternator for a Cessna 172 cost $600. Except for the FAA inspection tag it was exactly the same alternator as in the Olds Cutlass of the same year which cost $44. So, you guys, go ahead and believe what ever you want. Just remember that car prices more than doubled when they had to put the $600 worth of government mandated crap in them. "You have got to have this, it is the law, so we can charge you through the nose for it because you have no choice." What do you think auto liability insurance would cost if it was optional? -- graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" --- David Savage wrote: > On 5/24/07, Cory Papenfuss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Citing examples of consumer-grade electronics failing often negate >> the original assumption of properly and correctly designed with decent >> components. Take a piece of aircraft avionics they live in a >> *horrible* environment with heat/cold/vibration/shock/corrosion and last >> literally for decades. The failures are almost always mechanical, not >> electrical, and are due to the bad environment. > > Having helped change avionics, and seen what these components cost, > any company that designed consumer products to this standard would be > a small niche player, or out of business. > > I remember almost falling over when I was told the cost of the fuel > flow transducer on a PT6 engine. > > Also aircraft have more stringent regular maintenance checks than do > consumer products. > > Cheers, > > Dave > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
On 5/24/07, Cory Papenfuss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Citing examples of consumer-grade electronics failing often negate > the original assumption of properly and correctly designed with decent > components. Take a piece of aircraft avionics they live in a > *horrible* environment with heat/cold/vibration/shock/corrosion and last > literally for decades. The failures are almost always mechanical, not > electrical, and are due to the bad environment. Having helped change avionics, and seen what these components cost, any company that designed consumer products to this standard would be a small niche player, or out of business. I remember almost falling over when I was told the cost of the fuel flow transducer on a PT6 engine. Also aircraft have more stringent regular maintenance checks than do consumer products. Cheers, Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
- Original Message - From: "Cory Papenfuss" Subject: Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but... > > Citing examples of consumer-grade electronics failing often negate > the original assumption of properly and correctly designed with decent > components. Take a piece of aircraft avionics they live in a > *horrible* environment with heat/cold/vibration/shock/corrosion and last > literally for decades. The failures are almost always mechanical, not > electrical, and are due to the bad environment. The subject is consumer grade electronics. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
This started from my saying that I wasn't expecting any major improvements in digital photography in the next few years, and that the K10D is remarkable for its specification/price ratio rather than for breaking new ground. However it is done, shake reduction has been with us for a while, and IMO doesn't amount to anything especially new in digital photography. John On Thu, 24 May 2007 21:32:58 +0100, Bob Blakely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Think of it as adding 2 -> 2&1/2 stops. >or... > Think of it as allowing me to mount my camera on my motorcycle bars. > > That means a lot to me. > > Regards, > Bob Blakely > > From: "John Forbes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> I agree, Peter, but it's not a specifically digital breakthrough. >> Theoretically it would be possible to build a film body with anti-shake. > > The energy to move an entire film plane, spools, pressure plate, frame > and > all, would suck up too much battery with even the highest energy density > batteries available today. > >> And also, it doesn't improve image quality generally, only with slow >> shutter speeds. > > It allows you to stop down a few more stops (better DOF) where you > couldn't > before. >or... > It allows you to use a slower ISO for less noise. > > > -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
On 25/05/07, John Forbes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This started from my saying that I wasn't expecting any major improvements > in digital photography in the next few years, and that the K10D is > remarkable for its specification/price ratio rather than for breaking new > ground. However it is done, shake reduction has been with us for a while, > and IMO doesn't amount to anything especially new in digital photography. It's new for Pentax photography ;-) -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://picasaweb.google.com/distudio/PESO http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
Think of it as adding 2 -> 2&1/2 stops. or... Think of it as allowing me to mount my camera on my motorcycle bars. That means a lot to me. Regards, Bob Blakely From: "John Forbes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >I agree, Peter, but it's not a specifically digital breakthrough. > Theoretically it would be possible to build a film body with anti-shake. The energy to move an entire film plane, spools, pressure plate, frame and all, would suck up too much battery with even the highest energy density batteries available today. > And also, it doesn't improve image quality generally, only with slow > shutter speeds. It allows you to stop down a few more stops (better DOF) where you couldn't before. or... It allows you to use a slower ISO for less noise. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
Actually, in-body anti-shake is digital-only, there's too much mass in a film transport system to do it reliably. That's why film setups only use in-lens (both technologies have been understood at the theoretical level for years). -Adam John Forbes wrote: > I agree, Peter, but it's not a specifically digital breakthrough. > Theoretically it would be possible to build a film body with anti-shake. > > And also, it doesn't improve image quality generally, only with slow > shutter speeds. > > John > > On Thu, 24 May 2007 00:36:13 +0100, P. J. Alling > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
I agree, Peter, but it's not a specifically digital breakthrough. Theoretically it would be possible to build a film body with anti-shake. And also, it doesn't improve image quality generally, only with slow shutter speeds. John On Thu, 24 May 2007 00:36:13 +0100, P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Actually if the Anti Shake works the way Pentax claims it is a > breakthrough. It may not be apparent in any flashy way but it's there. > > John Forbes wrote: >> On Wed, 23 May 2007 15:47:24 +0100, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > I was simply being kind and was at a loss for words. If I knew a > camera > company was going out of business I certainly would not run out and > buy > more > of the same because it will eventually stop working, likely not be > supported, and be worthless. > > Tom C. > Let me explain it in short words. The scenario is that Hoya closes Pentax down. Like several people here, I have a lot of Pentax lenses, most of which will last my lifetime, unlike a camera body . The only thing that will prevent me from using the lenses is camera failure. If I try to sell the lenses, I won't get much for them, because nobody will want them. To change to a different system would cost thousands. So the sensible thing is to buy a couple more bodies, and by using them lightly hope to get at least 10 years use out of them, or even more. Digital camera technology is now quite mature. Improvements in picture quality are pretty small. Pictures I get from my *ist D are not hugely worse than my K10D. I do not expect that any camera produced in the next few years will be so advanced as to make either of these obsolete. So if Hoya DOES close Pentax, which I think is highly unlikely, I shall buy a couple more bodies. Probably a K110D and a K10D. I suspect some other people in my position will do the same. Whether body prices will actually rise, I don't know. But they won't fall as much as lenses. John >>> I understand the logic behind it. The other view, in this theorhetical >>> situation, is that instead of continuing to drive down a one lane >>> dead-end >>> street in a car w/o a reverse gear, one could either go down a >>> different >>> street or get a different vehicle. >>> >> >> If money were no object, one could choose any option. I am interested >> in >> finding the most cost-effective one. >> >> >>> I guess I think that it's more likely for a body to fail and become >>> worthless than it is for a lens to totally fail. >>> >> >> Tom, you're nearly there. It's because bodies are more likely to fail >> that I would be keen to buy a couple and that way ensure that my lenses >> could still be used. I wouldn't buy more lenses because eventually >> there >> would be no body to use them on. That would be a waste. >> >> >>> Who knows what advancements could be made in digital picture technology >>> in 5 - 10 years? >>> >> >> Not much, judging by how little progress there has been in the last two >> years. As I said, this is a technology that is now quite mature. The >> K10D is remarkable for its feature set and its price. It doesn't break >> any new ground technologically. >> >> John >> >> >> > > -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
On Wed, 23 May 2007, Digital Image Studio wrote: > On 23/05/07, Cory Papenfuss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Most likely a mechanical failure in the camcorder, and either a >> mechanical failure or electronic overheating in the DVD player. Properly >> designed solid-state electronics will last practically until the sun burns >> out (or the electrolytic caps fail). > > I should add by citing a very recent example of equipment failure that > I experienced. Yesterday my network printer printed one job but the > next was stuck in the queue and would not print. The problem turned > out to be the JetDirect network interface card in the printer, it was > simply no more, nothing fried on it (and no tinned electros either > funny enough) but the printer completely failed to recognize it any > longer. > > It had on board a Philips ARM processor, Samsung RAM, Broadcom LAN > interface and another AMD CPU plus a handful of passive components. > I'm sure that the components could be designed to me more robust but > I'm also sure that in this case they would have all be working well > within their design parameters however it broke for no apparent > reason. > Like I said, properly design electronic devices made with high-quality components and attention to thermal design last practically forever. Major causes are: - Bad or no thermal design... especially with computer parts - Electrolytic caps - Electrostatic damage - Mechanical shock (not too normal) Citing examples of consumer-grade electronics failing often negate the original assumption of properly and correctly designed with decent components. Take a piece of aircraft avionics they live in a *horrible* environment with heat/cold/vibration/shock/corrosion and last literally for decades. The failures are almost always mechanical, not electrical, and are due to the bad environment. -Cory -- * * Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA * * Electrical Engineering* * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University * * -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
Actually if the Anti Shake works the way Pentax claims it is a breakthrough. It may not be apparent in any flashy way but it's there. John Forbes wrote: > On Wed, 23 May 2007 15:47:24 +0100, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I was simply being kind and was at a loss for words. If I knew a >>> camera >>> company was going out of business I certainly would not run out and >>> buy >>> more of the same because it will eventually stop working, likely not be supported, and be worthless. Tom C. >>> Let me explain it in short words. The scenario is that Hoya closes >>> Pentax >>> down. Like several people here, I have a lot of Pentax lenses, most of >>> which will last my lifetime, unlike a camera body . The only thing that >>> will prevent me from using the lenses is camera failure. >>> >>> If I try to sell the lenses, I won't get much for them, because nobody >>> will want them. To change to a different system would cost thousands. >>> >>> So the sensible thing is to buy a couple more bodies, and by using them >>> lightly hope to get at least 10 years use out of them, or even more. >>> >>> Digital camera technology is now quite mature. Improvements in picture >>> quality are pretty small. Pictures I get from my *ist D are not hugely >>> worse than my K10D. I do not expect that any camera produced in the >>> next >>> few years will be so advanced as to make either of these obsolete. >>> >>> So if Hoya DOES close Pentax, which I think is highly unlikely, I shall >>> buy a couple more bodies. Probably a K110D and a K10D. I suspect some >>> other people in my position will do the same. Whether body prices will >>> actually rise, I don't know. But they won't fall as much as lenses. >>> >>> John >>> >>> >> I understand the logic behind it. The other view, in this theorhetical >> situation, is that instead of continuing to drive down a one lane >> dead-end >> street in a car w/o a reverse gear, one could either go down a different >> street or get a different vehicle. >> > > If money were no object, one could choose any option. I am interested in > finding the most cost-effective one. > > >> I guess I think that it's more likely for a body to fail and become >> worthless than it is for a lens to totally fail. >> > > Tom, you're nearly there. It's because bodies are more likely to fail > that I would be keen to buy a couple and that way ensure that my lenses > could still be used. I wouldn't buy more lenses because eventually there > would be no body to use them on. That would be a waste. > > >> Who knows what advancements could be made in digital picture technology >> in 5 - 10 years? >> > > Not much, judging by how little progress there has been in the last two > years. As I said, this is a technology that is now quite mature. The > K10D is remarkable for its feature set and its price. It doesn't break > any new ground technologically. > > John > > > -- All dogs have four legs; my cat has four legs. Therefore, my cat is a dog. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
> >It's just economics, Tom. For hundreds of dollars I could prolong the use >of my lovely Pentax lenses for many years. To switch would cost thousands. > >John > > I understand. When/if it comes to it, switching will be a slow process for me. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
On May 23, 2007, at 9:35 AM, John Francis wrote: > ... perhaps the > research that Pat Hanrahan's group are doing over at Stanford on a > camera that captures more than just a single plane of focus. It's a > little early to tell, but I suspect the tradeoff in lower resolution > may relegate this to little more than an interesting experiment. ... I was at a presentation of the plenoptic camera technology a few months (or was it a year?) ago. Practical implementations is predicated on the notion that within the next few years there will be available cost-effective sensors with 100Mpixel or more, essentially excess resolution for practical use with current imaging systems. Bending that excess resolution to recording direction vector information gives access to whole new dimensions in image capture. G -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
On Wed, 23 May 2007 18:45:21 +0100, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Tom, you're nearly there. It's because bodies are more likely to fail >> that I would be keen to buy a couple and that way ensure that my lenses >> could still be used. I wouldn't buy more lenses because eventually >> there >> would be no body to use them on. That would be a waste. > > All this is hypothetical of course. It's not the path I would take > John. I > understand the logic that gets you there and that's fine for you. I just > think it's short-sighted. Not only might you end up with lenses and > camera > bodies that don't work due to age, you could have an accident and lose a > camera body that way as well. You'll have spent extra money on dinosaur > bodies, when you could have bought into a system that has a future. > > Your last sentence somes up my reasoning. Eventually there will be no > body > to use them on. > >> >> > Who knows what advancements could be made in digital picture >> technology >> > in 5 - 10 years? >> >> Not much, judging by how little progress there has been in the last two >> years. As I said, this is a technology that is now quite mature. The >> K10D is remarkable for its feature set and its price. It doesn't break >> any new ground technologically. >> > > Five years from now, what if you could get a 20+ MP body for around the > price of a K10D? You hypothetical actions are sort of investing in the > past > instead of investing in the future. > > Tom C. It's just economics, Tom. For hundreds of dollars I could prolong the use of my lovely Pentax lenses for many years. To switch would cost thousands. John -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
Don't worry about bodies, Cotty is gonna show us all how to make Frankenlenses out of our best Pentax gear and mount it on Canons. Regards, Bob S. On 5/23/07, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >Tom, you're nearly there. It's because bodies are more likely to fail > >that I would be keen to buy a couple and that way ensure that my lenses > >could still be used. I wouldn't buy more lenses because eventually there > >would be no body to use them on. That would be a waste. > > All this is hypothetical of course. It's not the path I would take John. I > understand the logic that gets you there and that's fine for you. I just > think it's short-sighted. Not only might you end up with lenses and camera > bodies that don't work due to age, you could have an accident and lose a > camera body that way as well. You'll have spent extra money on dinosaur > bodies, when you could have bought into a system that has a future. > > Your last sentence somes up my reasoning. Eventually there will be no body > to use them on. > > > > > > Who knows what advancements could be made in digital picture technology > > > in 5 - 10 years? > > > >Not much, judging by how little progress there has been in the last two > >years. As I said, this is a technology that is now quite mature. The > >K10D is remarkable for its feature set and its price. It doesn't break > >any new ground technologically. > > > > Five years from now, what if you could get a 20+ MP body for around the > price of a K10D? You hypothetical actions are sort of investing in the past > instead of investing in the future. > > Tom C. > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
> >Tom, you're nearly there. It's because bodies are more likely to fail >that I would be keen to buy a couple and that way ensure that my lenses >could still be used. I wouldn't buy more lenses because eventually there >would be no body to use them on. That would be a waste. All this is hypothetical of course. It's not the path I would take John. I understand the logic that gets you there and that's fine for you. I just think it's short-sighted. Not only might you end up with lenses and camera bodies that don't work due to age, you could have an accident and lose a camera body that way as well. You'll have spent extra money on dinosaur bodies, when you could have bought into a system that has a future. Your last sentence somes up my reasoning. Eventually there will be no body to use them on. > > > Who knows what advancements could be made in digital picture technology > > in 5 - 10 years? > >Not much, judging by how little progress there has been in the last two >years. As I said, this is a technology that is now quite mature. The >K10D is remarkable for its feature set and its price. It doesn't break >any new ground technologically. > Five years from now, what if you could get a 20+ MP body for around the price of a K10D? You hypothetical actions are sort of investing in the past instead of investing in the future. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
On Wed, 23 May 2007 15:47:24 +0100, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > >> > I was simply being kind and was at a loss for words. If I knew a >> camera >> > company was going out of business I certainly would not run out and >> buy >> > more >> > of the same because it will eventually stop working, likely not be >> > supported, and be worthless. >> > >> > Tom C. >> >> Let me explain it in short words. The scenario is that Hoya closes >> Pentax >> down. Like several people here, I have a lot of Pentax lenses, most of >> which will last my lifetime, unlike a camera body . The only thing that >> will prevent me from using the lenses is camera failure. >> >> If I try to sell the lenses, I won't get much for them, because nobody >> will want them. To change to a different system would cost thousands. >> >> So the sensible thing is to buy a couple more bodies, and by using them >> lightly hope to get at least 10 years use out of them, or even more. >> >> Digital camera technology is now quite mature. Improvements in picture >> quality are pretty small. Pictures I get from my *ist D are not hugely >> worse than my K10D. I do not expect that any camera produced in the >> next >> few years will be so advanced as to make either of these obsolete. >> >> So if Hoya DOES close Pentax, which I think is highly unlikely, I shall >> buy a couple more bodies. Probably a K110D and a K10D. I suspect some >> other people in my position will do the same. Whether body prices will >> actually rise, I don't know. But they won't fall as much as lenses. >> >> John >> > > I understand the logic behind it. The other view, in this theorhetical > situation, is that instead of continuing to drive down a one lane > dead-end > street in a car w/o a reverse gear, one could either go down a different > street or get a different vehicle. If money were no object, one could choose any option. I am interested in finding the most cost-effective one. > I guess I think that it's more likely for a body to fail and become > worthless than it is for a lens to totally fail. Tom, you're nearly there. It's because bodies are more likely to fail that I would be keen to buy a couple and that way ensure that my lenses could still be used. I wouldn't buy more lenses because eventually there would be no body to use them on. That would be a waste. > Who knows what advancements could be made in digital picture technology > in 5 - 10 years? Not much, judging by how little progress there has been in the last two years. As I said, this is a technology that is now quite mature. The K10D is remarkable for its feature set and its price. It doesn't break any new ground technologically. John -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
In my experience things usually fail right away, or wait until they are unrepairable . Besides this list is just like the evening news, there is no interest in good news. Seems to me the only time we do not want to hear about someones problems is when they are close enough to them that we feel we should do something about their problems, and thus make them our own. Digital Image Studio wrote: > On 23/05/07, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On May 22, 2007, at 8:23 PM, Digital Image Studio wrote: > >> Listening to people on this mailing list moan and complain about >> everything under the sun, you would swear that absolutely nothing >> works at all. You must all live in a different universe. > > I've managed consumer and professional electronics repair centres and > I can assure it's the same universe, you're just been lucky. > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 08:47:24AM -0600, Tom C wrote: > > Who knows what advancements could be made in digital picture technology in 5 > - 10 years? > > Tom C. Well, we don't know, but I should think we could make a pretty good guess. Digital cameras have been around that long, and digital imaging has been around significantly longer. The last four or five years (roughly the amount of time Pentax have been in the game) have been mostly evolutionary - pixel density has climbed, and image quality has improved, but the digital cameras of today look and work pretty much identically to those of five years ago. The only revolutionary changes in hardware that have come along since the start of the colour digital camera era are the Bayer sensor (who remembers those old three-sensor cameras?), the Foveon sensor (which looks as though it might be a technological dead end), and perhaps the research that Pat Hanrahan's group are doing over at Stanford on a camera that captures more than just a single plane of focus. It's a little early to tell, but I suspect the tradeoff in lower resolution may relegate this to little more than an interesting experiment. Most of the other advances have been made in image processing, or in ergonomics. I can still take photographs with my *ist D, and for most of what I do it's more than good enough. It's not as convenient to use as the K10D (for a variety of reasons), but it does still work. And I can take the resulting images and process them using all the latest software. Over the next five or ten years I expect to see the same pattern continue. I don't expect a revolutionary change in camera design. Perhaps we'll see larger sensors increase their share of the market place. Perhaps we'll see a good electronic shutter and viewfinder, which will remove the need for the mirror and focal plane shutter. I'm sure we'll see sensors which work better at higher ISOs, but fortunately for me that's not a significant fraction of what I do. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
On May 23, 2007, at 7:34 AM, Tom C wrote: > Send it to Godfrey. It will start working again. Most likely. I have that effect on devices, it seems. G -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
> > > > I was simply being kind and was at a loss for words. If I knew a camera > > company was going out of business I certainly would not run out and buy > > more > > of the same because it will eventually stop working, likely not be > > supported, and be worthless. > > > > Tom C. > >Let me explain it in short words. The scenario is that Hoya closes Pentax >down. Like several people here, I have a lot of Pentax lenses, most of >which will last my lifetime, unlike a camera body . The only thing that >will prevent me from using the lenses is camera failure. > >If I try to sell the lenses, I won't get much for them, because nobody >will want them. To change to a different system would cost thousands. > >So the sensible thing is to buy a couple more bodies, and by using them >lightly hope to get at least 10 years use out of them, or even more. > >Digital camera technology is now quite mature. Improvements in picture >quality are pretty small. Pictures I get from my *ist D are not hugely >worse than my K10D. I do not expect that any camera produced in the next >few years will be so advanced as to make either of these obsolete. > >So if Hoya DOES close Pentax, which I think is highly unlikely, I shall >buy a couple more bodies. Probably a K110D and a K10D. I suspect some >other people in my position will do the same. Whether body prices will >actually rise, I don't know. But they won't fall as much as lenses. > >John > I understand the logic behind it. The other view, in this theorhetical situation, is that instead of continuing to drive down a one lane dead-end street in a car w/o a reverse gear, one could either go down a different street or get a different vehicle. I guess I think that it's more likely for a body to fail and become worthless than it is for a lens to totally fail. Who knows what advancements could be made in digital picture technology in 5 - 10 years? Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
> >I should add by citing a very recent example of equipment failure that >I experienced. Yesterday my network printer printed one job but the >next was stuck in the queue and would not print. The problem turned >out to be the JetDirect network interface card in the printer, it was >simply no more, nothing fried on it (and no tinned electros either >funny enough) but the printer completely failed to recognize it any >longer. > >It had on board a Philips ARM processor, Samsung RAM, Broadcom LAN >interface and another AMD CPU plus a handful of passive components. >I'm sure that the components could be designed to me more robust but >I'm also sure that in this case they would have all be working well >within their design parameters however it broke for no apparent >reason. > >-- >Rob Studdert Send it to Godfrey. It will start working again. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
Donations gladly accepted. Tom C. >From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >Subject: Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but... >Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 21:59:11 -0400 > >Yes. >On May 22, 2007, at 6:35 PM, Tom C wrote: > > > I used to think that way too. However when one has time to spend > > but not > > the money, they spend the asset they can most afford to spend. > > > > In my case it was time. > > > > Is there anything wrong with that? > > > > Tom C. > > > > > >> From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >> Subject: Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but... > >> Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 18:10:37 -0400 > >> > >> My point is you spent 10 hours fixing a broken washer. I value my > >> time > >> at about $70.00 an hour spending 10 hours diagnosing something on > >> that > >> basis I would be $375 in the hole. Actually I replace about half of > >> them as a prophylactic measure. Only two absolutely needed to be > >> replaced, the rest were well on their way to failing and at less that > >> $1.00 each it was well worth replacing them all at the same time. > >> The > >> switch was dodgey and on it's way to failure as well. I could > >> probably > >> have monkeyed around with to make it work better, but only a > >> couple of > >> bucks extra it seemed a no brainer to replace it at the same time. > >> > >> Tom C wrote: > >>> I already told you, but what's your point? Mine is that I saved > >>> $325 I > >>> didn't have free to spend on the unexpected problem. It's not > >>> that it > >> was > >>> hard, to fix because done once I could do it again in less than > >>> an hour. > >> I'm > >>> a clod when it comes to things mechanical. > >>> > >>> It sounds like you replaced lots of minor items without > >>> troubleshooting > >>> them. Whereas I ran though the diagnostic flow chart, took off the > >> drain > >>> pump, checked it to see if it's clogged and operating correctly, > >>> etc. > >> Much > >>> of that, in the end, was time spent isolating the problem, not > >>> actually > >>> repairing it. > >>> > >>> You can't make me feel bad about it. :-) > >>> > >>> Tom C. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >>>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >>>> Subject: Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but... > >>>> Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 16:26:43 -0400 > >>>> > >>>> How many hours did you spend fixing your washer? I replaced every > >>>> important sensor and a switch, (essentially rebuilding the > >>>> electrical > >>>> system), in less that two hours. Most of that was figuring out > >>>> how to > >>>> take the back off. > >>>> > >>>> Tom C wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> I think the new technology is often easily repairable. It's > >>>>> just that > >>>>> > >>>> most > >>>> > >>>>> of the electronics is now manufactured overseas and it's > >>>>> incredibly > >>>>> > >>>> cheap. > >>>> > >>>>> A company makes more profit replacing an entire circuit board that > >> costs > >>>>> > >>>> $20 > >>>> > >>>>> and charging $250 + 1 hour labor, than they do trouble shooting > >>>>> the > >>>>> > >>>> board > >>>> > >>>>> for an hour and replacing $.10 and $1.00 parts. For the > >>>>> company, time > >> is > >>>>> money. Also, the customer unable to diagnose othe problem, is > >>>>> happy > >> just > >>>>> > >>>> to > >>>> > >>>>> get the serviceman in and out. > >>>>> > >>>>> Tom C. > >>&
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
You get one from Verizon? Norm Doug Brewer wrote: > thin Q > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
On May 23, 2007, at 2:06 AM, mike wilson wrote: > Hmmm. In the three(?) years I've known you, you have replaced your > computer, HDDs, car, cameras, lenses and cell phone. The two > things that you have mentioned that you have owned for what I would > consider a decent length of time are a bicycle and an electronic > calculator. You do seem to live in a different world to me. You don't understand the reasons for my purchasing new equipment. Far be it from my having to justify why I buy things to you, but these are the reasons I've purchased stuff: - I upgrade computers as I need to for performance reasons. Both the computer I replaced last year were in perfect working condition, I got top dollar for them, and the people who bought them from me are continuing to use them without problems. - None of my HDDs have had problems. I've bought new ones as I needed more space. - Purchasing a new car was a financial and environmental strategy. The new car saves me $350 a month in ownership and running expenses and is more suitable to my daily use. The old car was working perfectly and I got top dollar return on it for its age and mileage. The car I had before that I drove for 17 years. - I bought a new cell phone to upgrade my service to GSM capability for travel use world wide and to replace two devices, cell phone and Palm Vx, that I was carrying all the time. The old phone was working fine and I'd had it for five years, the Palm I'd had for eight years and was still working well, although it needed a new battery installed. - Cameras and lenses I change as my needs and desires change. I enjoy working with different equipment. Eight of the cameras in my cabinet that I don't use much any more because I'm not shooting film I've owned and used for 17 years, they are all in perfect condition however. The only electronic device I've had to replace due to failure in the past 15 years was a Pioneer Elite Laserdisc player. It had a gear drive and double read heads (so it could play both sides of the laserdisc without my having to physically flip the media) that proved to be too fragile and required replacement twice. A mechanical failure, not an electronic one. I replaced it with a simpler model. Oh, and a monitor power supply that had become overheated. The old one was recycled and refurbished for sale again by a local supply company. I like my universe. ;-) Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
Just a friendly reminder from the List Guy: Please remember to trim posts to fit them under the 10K size limit. thin Q -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
On Wed, 23 May 2007 00:04:03 +0100, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> He bought a K10D a long time after he was predicting Pentax's demise on >> here, and he did so because his predictions about Pentax going belly up >> were proved wrong. > > Do you consider two years a long time? John. What is a prediction? A > prediction is a statement regarding what one believes will happen inthe > future. Future, future, future. While I disagree with you at the most > basic level that he was predicting, or I was predicting, they would end > up > defunct, that was and still is, one of the many possible scenarios. In > any > case, I don't believe ANYONE stated anything with absolute surety, except > possibly you making statements that not even Pentax management was > making. > >> >> Herb's motive was obvious when he told us that lens prices would go up >> after Pentax went broke. It was a ridiculous belief, but it explained >> his >> strategy. >> > > I don't believe body prices would go up. Anyone that is in the hobby for > photography's sake will change brands. Only collectors would pay a > premium. > >> > You still don't get that no one said what was going to happen or when, >> > just that it seemed likely it might. >> >> Good grief! If they didn't say WHAT would happen, how could they say >> that >> it MIGHT? This complete absence of logic is sadly characteristic of >> everything you say. > > Because John, REASONABLE people don't speak in absolute terms. We all > spoke > of WHAT MIGHT happen. And it is. Study the syntax. The IT MIGHT refers to the WHAT. If you don't define the WHAT, you can't say IT MIGHT. >> Two names. Samsung. Hoya. Pentax is >> > not, right now the same company it was 2 months ago, or 6 months. >> They >> > will not be as autonomous as they once were (which may be the best >> > thing). >> >> >> >> >> He was of course as far from reality with that as with everything >> else. >> >> If Pentax does disappear, I would think it is much more likely that >> >> lenses will lose their value, but that the better bodies will gain. >> >> People will want to be sure that they have a working body to use >> their >> >> lenses with, so will buy one or two extra bodies as insurance. >> >> Certainly, that's what I >> >> shall do. >> >> >> >> John >> >> Oh brother. >> >> > Tom C. >> >> When you run out of arguments and self-justification you resort to "oh >> brother". > > I was simply being kind and was at a loss for words. If I knew a camera > company was going out of business I certainly would not run out and buy > more > of the same because it will eventually stop working, likely not be > supported, and be worthless. > > Tom C. Let me explain it in short words. The scenario is that Hoya closes Pentax down. Like several people here, I have a lot of Pentax lenses, most of which will last my lifetime, unlike a camera body . The only thing that will prevent me from using the lenses is camera failure. If I try to sell the lenses, I won't get much for them, because nobody will want them. To change to a different system would cost thousands. So the sensible thing is to buy a couple more bodies, and by using them lightly hope to get at least 10 years use out of them, or even more. Digital camera technology is now quite mature. Improvements in picture quality are pretty small. Pictures I get from my *ist D are not hugely worse than my K10D. I do not expect that any camera produced in the next few years will be so advanced as to make either of these obsolete. So if Hoya DOES close Pentax, which I think is highly unlikely, I shall buy a couple more bodies. Probably a K110D and a K10D. I suspect some other people in my position will do the same. Whether body prices will actually rise, I don't know. But they won't fall as much as lenses. John -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
> > From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2007/05/23 Wed AM 04:26:05 GMT > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but... > > > On May 22, 2007, at 8:23 PM, Digital Image Studio wrote: > > > In the real world laser diodes fail with alarming regularity even when > > the current regulation feedback systems are doing their job 100% > > Listening to people on this mailing list moan and complain about > everything under the sun, you would swear that absolutely nothing > works at all. You must all live in a different universe. > > The stuff I buy tends to work, and work, and work, and work. In 44 > years of doing photography, I've had to have minor repair done five > or six times, usually on stuff where I did something I know was > stupid. My computer works and works, my cell phone and tape recorder > and VCR and wireless base station and hard drives and calculator and > microwave oven and electronic ignition and car and whatever all just > work and work. > > I don't know what y'all are doing wrong, but I'm happy with the > universe I'm living in. Hmmm. In the three(?) years I've known you, you have replaced your computer, HDDs, car, cameras, lenses and cell phone. The two things that you have mentioned that you have owned for what I would consider a decent length of time are a bicycle and an electronic calculator. You do seem to live in a different world to me. 8-) - Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
> > From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2007/05/22 Tue PM 10:37:08 GMT > To: pdml@pdml.net > Subject: Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but... > > >image sensors generally become noisy over time and can suffer degradation > >of their > >Bayer filters and photosites due to overexposure. > > > >-- > >Rob Studdert > > That does it. I'm not taking the lens cap off of my *ist D ever again! That will be a relief for many of us. (Meaning that your pictures are good, not bad) <- Just in case. - Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
On 23/05/07, Cory Papenfuss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Most likely a mechanical failure in the camcorder, and either a > mechanical failure or electronic overheating in the DVD player. Properly > designed solid-state electronics will last practically until the sun burns > out (or the electrolytic caps fail). I should add by citing a very recent example of equipment failure that I experienced. Yesterday my network printer printed one job but the next was stuck in the queue and would not print. The problem turned out to be the JetDirect network interface card in the printer, it was simply no more, nothing fried on it (and no tinned electros either funny enough) but the printer completely failed to recognize it any longer. It had on board a Philips ARM processor, Samsung RAM, Broadcom LAN interface and another AMD CPU plus a handful of passive components. I'm sure that the components could be designed to me more robust but I'm also sure that in this case they would have all be working well within their design parameters however it broke for no apparent reason. -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://picasaweb.google.com/distudio/PESO http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
Yada...yada...yada -- Bruce Tuesday, May 22, 2007, 9:34:43 PM, you wrote: WR> - Original Message - WR> From: "Paul Stenquist" WR> Subject: Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but... >> This thread is now about old Nikons, appliance repair and totally >> inept financial speculation. It's a real hoot! WR> We've Seinfelded it. WR> Excellent. WR> William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
- Original Message - From: "Paul Stenquist" Subject: Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but... > This thread is now about old Nikons, appliance repair and totally > inept financial speculation. It's a real hoot! We've Seinfelded it. Excellent. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
On 23/05/07, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On May 22, 2007, at 8:23 PM, Digital Image Studio wrote: > Listening to people on this mailing list moan and complain about > everything under the sun, you would swear that absolutely nothing > works at all. You must all live in a different universe. I've managed consumer and professional electronics repair centres and I can assure it's the same universe, you're just been lucky. -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://picasaweb.google.com/distudio/PESO http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
On May 22, 2007, at 8:23 PM, Digital Image Studio wrote: > In the real world laser diodes fail with alarming regularity even when > the current regulation feedback systems are doing their job 100% Listening to people on this mailing list moan and complain about everything under the sun, you would swear that absolutely nothing works at all. You must all live in a different universe. The stuff I buy tends to work, and work, and work, and work. In 44 years of doing photography, I've had to have minor repair done five or six times, usually on stuff where I did something I know was stupid. My computer works and works, my cell phone and tape recorder and VCR and wireless base station and hard drives and calculator and microwave oven and electronic ignition and car and whatever all just work and work. I don't know what y'all are doing wrong, but I'm happy with the universe I'm living in. G -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
On 23/05/07, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That's not supported by the numbers I've seen. Like most of the > financial information posted here, ti's a wild ass guess. It's information that's publicly accessible if you'd care to look (though I know you don't). -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://picasaweb.google.com/distudio/PESO http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
On 23/05/07, Cory Papenfuss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Most likely a mechanical failure in the camcorder, and either a > mechanical failure or electronic overheating in the DVD player. Properly > designed solid-state electronics will last practically until the sun burns > out (or the electrolytic caps fail). In the real world laser diodes fail with alarming regularity even when the current regulation feedback systems are doing their job 100% -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://picasaweb.google.com/distudio/PESO http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
On Mon, 21 May 2007, Tom C wrote: > I find electronics stuff dies all the time. I've had A Sharp camcorder and > DVD player both work fine for years and then all of sudden fail one day, > with no warning. > Most likely a mechanical failure in the camcorder, and either a mechanical failure or electronic overheating in the DVD player. Properly designed solid-state electronics will last practically until the sun burns out (or the electrolytic caps fail). -Cory > In the case of AC appliances, if I was looking for an external cause I'd > guess it was power surges. > > In the case of other items, I guess nothing lasts forever. > > Tom C. > > >> From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> Subject: Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but... >> Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 16:18:04 -0700 >> >> >> On May 21, 2007, at 3:02 PM, Cotty wrote: >> >>> The Canon lenses will still be working in 3 years - dunno about 6. >>> Electronic AF and AE (and IS inside one lens) mean that there's a >>> lot to >>> go wrong. I suspect the electronics will die before anything else. >> >> Why would the electronics die unless you dunked them in water? I've >> got an electronic calculator here that's nearly 30 years old and >> still working perfectly. >> >> G >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > -- * * Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA * * Electrical Engineering* * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University * * -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
This thread is now about old Nikons, appliance repair and totally inept financial speculation. It's a real hoot! Paul On May 22, 2007, at 9:30 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > > On May 22, 2007, at 12:57 PM, Adam Maas wrote: > >> The F2's a wonderful beast. I picked up a late-production black one >> with >> a DP-11 head a few months ago and it's quickly become one of my two >> main >> film bodies. >> >> I'd take the F2A or F2AS over the F2S though, AI coupling is less >> hassle. And the DP-11 (F2A head) is noted as the most reliable of >> the F2 >> metered finders. > > Doh! @@@ damn, getting into my senility now. ;-) > Now I know why I didn't remember the batteries. I never had the meter > head for the F2: only a waist level and plain prism. > > G > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
Exactly. On May 22, 2007, at 5:06 PM, Tim Øsleby wrote: > Yawn ;-) > > Tim Typo > Mostly Harmless > > - Original Message - > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" > Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 8:47 PM > Subject: Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but... > > >> >> -- Original message -- >> From: Wilko Bulte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 02:03:32PM -0400, Norm Baugher wrote.. >>>> Are you suggesting that the mergers like Time/AOL, HP/Compaq, >>>> Daimler/Chrysler, etc. were not smashing successes? >>> >>> Daimler-Chrysler definitely was not a smashing success.. >>> >> It could have been. Unfortunately, some pigheaded people were >> involved. >> Paul >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> >> >> >> >> -- >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.6/815 - Release Date: >> 22.05.2007 >> 15:49 >> >> > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
That's not supported by the numbers I've seen. Like most of the financial information posted here, ti's a wild ass guess. Paul On May 22, 2007, at 6:30 PM, Digital Image Studio wrote: > On 23/05/07, John Forbes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> You were saying then that Pentax couldn't make money as a camaera >> maker. >> Well, guess what, you were wrong. >> The present situation is totally different. Hoya has come along >> with a >> good offer for Pentax because it thinks the medical business is >> complementary to what it is doing, and has made an offer which Sparxx >> thinks is too good to pass up. > > They lost more money in two years than they would have made up in five > even at their recently projected profit forecasts, that's called just > getting by and whether you believe it or not obviously the market > perception was such. > > -- > Rob Studdert > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://picasaweb.google.com/distudio/PESO > http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ > Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
Yes. On May 22, 2007, at 6:35 PM, Tom C wrote: > I used to think that way too. However when one has time to spend > but not > the money, they spend the asset they can most afford to spend. > > In my case it was time. > > Is there anything wrong with that? > > Tom C. > > >> From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> Subject: Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but... >> Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 18:10:37 -0400 >> >> My point is you spent 10 hours fixing a broken washer. I value my >> time >> at about $70.00 an hour spending 10 hours diagnosing something on >> that >> basis I would be $375 in the hole. Actually I replace about half of >> them as a prophylactic measure. Only two absolutely needed to be >> replaced, the rest were well on their way to failing and at less that >> $1.00 each it was well worth replacing them all at the same time. >> The >> switch was dodgey and on it's way to failure as well. I could >> probably >> have monkeyed around with to make it work better, but only a >> couple of >> bucks extra it seemed a no brainer to replace it at the same time. >> >> Tom C wrote: >>> I already told you, but what's your point? Mine is that I saved >>> $325 I >>> didn't have free to spend on the unexpected problem. It's not >>> that it >> was >>> hard, to fix because done once I could do it again in less than >>> an hour. >> I'm >>> a clod when it comes to things mechanical. >>> >>> It sounds like you replaced lots of minor items without >>> troubleshooting >>> them. Whereas I ran though the diagnostic flow chart, took off the >> drain >>> pump, checked it to see if it's clogged and operating correctly, >>> etc. >> Much >>> of that, in the end, was time spent isolating the problem, not >>> actually >>> repairing it. >>> >>> You can't make me feel bad about it. :-) >>> >>> Tom C. >>> >>> >>> >>>> From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>> Subject: Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but... >>>> Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 16:26:43 -0400 >>>> >>>> How many hours did you spend fixing your washer? I replaced every >>>> important sensor and a switch, (essentially rebuilding the >>>> electrical >>>> system), in less that two hours. Most of that was figuring out >>>> how to >>>> take the back off. >>>> >>>> Tom C wrote: >>>> >>>>> I think the new technology is often easily repairable. It's >>>>> just that >>>>> >>>> most >>>> >>>>> of the electronics is now manufactured overseas and it's >>>>> incredibly >>>>> >>>> cheap. >>>> >>>>> A company makes more profit replacing an entire circuit board that >> costs >>>>> >>>> $20 >>>> >>>>> and charging $250 + 1 hour labor, than they do trouble shooting >>>>> the >>>>> >>>> board >>>> >>>>> for an hour and replacing $.10 and $1.00 parts. For the >>>>> company, time >> is >>>>> money. Also, the customer unable to diagnose othe problem, is >>>>> happy >> just >>>>> >>>> to >>>> >>>>> get the serviceman in and out. >>>>> >>>>> Tom C. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>>> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>>>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>>>> Subject: Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but... >>>>>> Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 14:40:39 -0400 >>>>>> >>>>>> Front loads have been around for a long time, even here. The old >>>>>> technology is much easier to repair, and usually costs less >>>>>> than new >>>>>> electronic devices, which seem to designed to not be repaired. >>>>>> >>>>>> Tom C w
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
On May 22, 2007, at 12:57 PM, Adam Maas wrote: > The F2's a wonderful beast. I picked up a late-production black one > with > a DP-11 head a few months ago and it's quickly become one of my two > main > film bodies. > > I'd take the F2A or F2AS over the F2S though, AI coupling is less > hassle. And the DP-11 (F2A head) is noted as the most reliable of > the F2 > metered finders. Doh! @@@ damn, getting into my senility now. ;-) Now I know why I didn't remember the batteries. I never had the meter head for the F2: only a waist level and plain prism. G -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
On May 22, 2007, at 12:34 PM, William Robb wrote: > My old F Photomic used a PX13 battery that went into the metering > head. > There was no power in the body at all. The F2 put the battery into > the body, > in the traditional spot under the bottom plate. My memory is faulty then. Too much time away from them. > I just recently bought myself an F2 to replace the one that I let > go of back > about 20 years ago. I still think the F2s is the best 35mm SLR ever > made. It's certainly about the ruggedest mechanical tank of a 35mm SLR ever made. All the F/F2/F3 Nikons were great cameras. G -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
- Original Message - From: "Digital Image Studio" Subject: Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but... > > All well and good but the two top players manage to combine high > volume and high profit per unit. Gotta love cachet value. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
They didn't always. Digital Image Studio wrote: > On 23/05/07, P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> It's balancing act, if you don't look at it in a vacuum. >> >> Lower costs/Lower Profit per unit. -> Lower unit prices -> Higher demand >> -> Higher volume -> Higher overall profits >> >> Of course this assumes you can meet the demand. >> >> Japanese companies have in the past valued market penetration over >> higher profits. That's why Canon will "give" away High cost equipment >> to gain market share. Smaller companies have to have lower profit >> margins to get the same effect, which of course leads to lower marginal >> profits. As long as marginal profits aren't negative Pentax thought >> they were doing well. That was a more or less traditional view. >> > > All well and good but the two top players manage to combine high > volume and high profit per unit. > > -- All dogs have four legs; my cat has four legs. Therefore, my cat is a dog. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
On 23/05/07, P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's balancing act, if you don't look at it in a vacuum. > > Lower costs/Lower Profit per unit. -> Lower unit prices -> Higher demand > -> Higher volume -> Higher overall profits > > Of course this assumes you can meet the demand. > > Japanese companies have in the past valued market penetration over > higher profits. That's why Canon will "give" away High cost equipment > to gain market share. Smaller companies have to have lower profit > margins to get the same effect, which of course leads to lower marginal > profits. As long as marginal profits aren't negative Pentax thought > they were doing well. That was a more or less traditional view. All well and good but the two top players manage to combine high volume and high profit per unit. -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://picasaweb.google.com/distudio/PESO http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
On 23/05/07, P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You can spend it any way you want. I just find non computerized > appliances to be much easier to repair. It's not so much computerized but customization that comes back to nip you on the butt years down the line. I just retired an expensive European built combo washer drier simply because the custom analogue motor speed controller chip spat the dummy. The only option I had was to design a new speed controller module as no spare modules or chips were available world wide. -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://picasaweb.google.com/distudio/PESO http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
It's balancing act, if you don't look at it in a vacuum. Lower costs/Lower Profit per unit. -> Lower unit prices -> Higher demand -> Higher volume -> Higher overall profits Of course this assumes you can meet the demand. Japanese companies have in the past valued market penetration over higher profits. That's why Canon will "give" away High cost equipment to gain market share. Smaller companies have to have lower profit margins to get the same effect, which of course leads to lower marginal profits. As long as marginal profits aren't negative Pentax thought they were doing well. That was a more or less traditional view. Tom C wrote: >> On 23/05/07, John Forbes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >>> It would appear that Pentax is selling more K10Ds than it expected. >>> >> That >> >>> suggests lower unit costs, and more profit. Lower prices, I grant, mean >>> less profit. But since this division is making much more money than it >>> did, it suggests that the effect of the former is outweighing the effect >>> of the latter. >>> >> LOL, really ;-) >> >> -- >> Rob Studdert >> > > Yes and the fact that Pentax and Hoya are going to merge means that Pentax > was in spit and polish condtions, ship-shape financially speaking, before > embarking down this path. > > Lower Unit costs = Lower selling price = Less profit = Making much more > money than it did > > What's wrong with this picture? > > Tom C. > > > > -- All dogs have four legs; my cat has four legs. Therefore, my cat is a dog. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
You can spend it any way you want. I just find non computerized appliances to be much easier to repair. Tom C wrote: > I used to think that way too. However when one has time to spend but not > the money, they spend the asset they can most afford to spend. > > In my case it was time. > > Is there anything wrong with that? > > Tom C. > > > >> From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> Subject: Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but... >> Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 18:10:37 -0400 >> >> My point is you spent 10 hours fixing a broken washer. I value my time >> at about $70.00 an hour spending 10 hours diagnosing something on that >> basis I would be $375 in the hole. Actually I replace about half of >> them as a prophylactic measure. Only two absolutely needed to be >> replaced, the rest were well on their way to failing and at less that >> $1.00 each it was well worth replacing them all at the same time. The >> switch was dodgey and on it's way to failure as well. I could probably >> have monkeyed around with to make it work better, but only a couple of >> bucks extra it seemed a no brainer to replace it at the same time. >> >> Tom C wrote: >> >>> I already told you, but what's your point? Mine is that I saved $325 I >>> didn't have free to spend on the unexpected problem. It's not that it >>> >> was >> >>> hard, to fix because done once I could do it again in less than an hour. >>> >> I'm >> >>> a clod when it comes to things mechanical. >>> >>> It sounds like you replaced lots of minor items without troubleshooting >>> them. Whereas I ran though the diagnostic flow chart, took off the >>> >> drain >> >>> pump, checked it to see if it's clogged and operating correctly, etc. >>> >> Much >> >>> of that, in the end, was time spent isolating the problem, not actually >>> repairing it. >>> >>> You can't make me feel bad about it. :-) >>> >>> Tom C. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>> Subject: Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but... >>>> Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 16:26:43 -0400 >>>> >>>> How many hours did you spend fixing your washer? I replaced every >>>> important sensor and a switch, (essentially rebuilding the electrical >>>> system), in less that two hours. Most of that was figuring out how to >>>> take the back off. >>>> >>>> Tom C wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> I think the new technology is often easily repairable. It's just that >>>>> >>>>> >>>> most >>>> >>>> >>>>> of the electronics is now manufactured overseas and it's incredibly >>>>> >>>>> >>>> cheap. >>>> >>>> >>>>> A company makes more profit replacing an entire circuit board that >>>>> >> costs >> >>>> $20 >>>> >>>> >>>>> and charging $250 + 1 hour labor, than they do trouble shooting the >>>>> >>>>> >>>> board >>>> >>>> >>>>> for an hour and replacing $.10 and $1.00 parts. For the company, time >>>>> >> is >> >>>>> money. Also, the customer unable to diagnose othe problem, is happy >>>>> >> just >> >>>> to >>>> >>>> >>>>> get the serviceman in and out. >>>>> >>>>> Tom C. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>>> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>>>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>>>> Subject: Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but... >>>>>> Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 14:40:39 -0400 >>>>>> >>>>>>
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
>He bought a K10D a long time after he was predicting Pentax's demise on >here, and he did so because his predictions about Pentax going belly up >were proved wrong. Do you consider two years a long time? John. What is a prediction? A prediction is a statement regarding what one believes will happen inthe future. Future, future, future. While I disagree with you at the most basic level that he was predicting, or I was predicting, they would end up defunct, that was and still is, one of the many possible scenarios. In any case, I don't believe ANYONE stated anything with absolute surety, except possibly you making statements that not even Pentax management was making. > >Herb's motive was obvious when he told us that lens prices would go up >after Pentax went broke. It was a ridiculous belief, but it explained his >strategy. > I don't believe body prices would go up. Anyone that is in the hobby for photography's sake will change brands. Only collectors would pay a premium. > > You still don't get that no one said what was going to happen or when, > > just that it seemed likely it might. > >Good grief! If they didn't say WHAT would happen, how could they say that >it MIGHT? This complete absence of logic is sadly characteristic of >everything you say. Because John, REASONABLE people don't speak in absolute terms. We all spoke of WHAT MIGHT happen. And it is. > >Two names. Samsung. Hoya. Pentax is > > not, right now the same company it was 2 months ago, or 6 months. They > > will not be as autonomous as they once were (which may be the best > > thing). > > >> > >> He was of course as far from reality with that as with everything else. > >> If Pentax does disappear, I would think it is much more likely that > >> lenses will lose their value, but that the better bodies will gain. > >> People will want to be sure that they have a working body to use their > >> lenses with, so will buy one or two extra bodies as insurance. > >> Certainly, that's what I > >> shall do. > >> > >> John > >Oh brother. > > > Tom C. > >When you run out of arguments and self-justification you resort to "oh >brother". I was simply being kind and was at a loss for words. If I knew a camera company was going out of business I certainly would not run out and buy more of the same because it will eventually stop working, likely not be supported, and be worthless. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
>On 23/05/07, John Forbes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > It would appear that Pentax is selling more K10Ds than it expected. >That > > suggests lower unit costs, and more profit. Lower prices, I grant, mean > > less profit. But since this division is making much more money than it > > did, it suggests that the effect of the former is outweighing the effect > > of the latter. > >LOL, really ;-) > >-- >Rob Studdert Yes and the fact that Pentax and Hoya are going to merge means that Pentax was in spit and polish condtions, ship-shape financially speaking, before embarking down this path. Lower Unit costs = Lower selling price = Less profit = Making much more money than it did What's wrong with this picture? Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
On 23/05/07, John Forbes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It would appear that Pentax is selling more K10Ds than it expected. That > suggests lower unit costs, and more profit. Lower prices, I grant, mean > less profit. But since this division is making much more money than it > did, it suggests that the effect of the former is outweighing the effect > of the latter. LOL, really ;-) -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://picasaweb.google.com/distudio/PESO http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
I used to think that way too. However when one has time to spend but not the money, they spend the asset they can most afford to spend. In my case it was time. Is there anything wrong with that? Tom C. >From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >Subject: Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but... >Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 18:10:37 -0400 > >My point is you spent 10 hours fixing a broken washer. I value my time >at about $70.00 an hour spending 10 hours diagnosing something on that >basis I would be $375 in the hole. Actually I replace about half of >them as a prophylactic measure. Only two absolutely needed to be >replaced, the rest were well on their way to failing and at less that >$1.00 each it was well worth replacing them all at the same time. The >switch was dodgey and on it's way to failure as well. I could probably >have monkeyed around with to make it work better, but only a couple of >bucks extra it seemed a no brainer to replace it at the same time. > >Tom C wrote: > > I already told you, but what's your point? Mine is that I saved $325 I > > didn't have free to spend on the unexpected problem. It's not that it >was > > hard, to fix because done once I could do it again in less than an hour. >I'm > > a clod when it comes to things mechanical. > > > > It sounds like you replaced lots of minor items without troubleshooting > > them. Whereas I ran though the diagnostic flow chart, took off the >drain > > pump, checked it to see if it's clogged and operating correctly, etc. >Much > > of that, in the end, was time spent isolating the problem, not actually > > repairing it. > > > > You can't make me feel bad about it. :-) > > > > Tom C. > > > > > > > >> From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >> Subject: Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but... > >> Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 16:26:43 -0400 > >> > >> How many hours did you spend fixing your washer? I replaced every > >> important sensor and a switch, (essentially rebuilding the electrical > >> system), in less that two hours. Most of that was figuring out how to > >> take the back off. > >> > >> Tom C wrote: > >> > >>> I think the new technology is often easily repairable. It's just that > >>> > >> most > >> > >>> of the electronics is now manufactured overseas and it's incredibly > >>> > >> cheap. > >> > >>> A company makes more profit replacing an entire circuit board that >costs > >>> > >> $20 > >> > >>> and charging $250 + 1 hour labor, than they do trouble shooting the > >>> > >> board > >> > >>> for an hour and replacing $.10 and $1.00 parts. For the company, time >is > >>> money. Also, the customer unable to diagnose othe problem, is happy >just > >>> > >> to > >> > >>> get the serviceman in and out. > >>> > >>> Tom C. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >>>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >>>> Subject: Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but... > >>>> Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 14:40:39 -0400 > >>>> > >>>> Front loads have been around for a long time, even here. The old > >>>> technology is much easier to repair, and usually costs less than new > >>>> electronic devices, which seem to designed to not be repaired. > >>>> > >>>> Tom C wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> Well I don't claim to be a rocket scientist. It usually take me 2 >or > >>>>> > >> 3 > >> > >>>>> trips to the parts store or tool store before I get things right > >>>>> > >> because > >> > >>>> I > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> learn as I go. I was happy to have saved at least $325. > >>>>> > >>>>> Two advantages of the newer front load washers (long popular in >Europe > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> and > >>>>
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
>> > So who doesn't know what they're talking about? >> > >> > Tom C. >> >> "Quote: Well, guess what? The sky IS falling. Two or more years ago >> those >> taunts >> were voiced when Herb (who has in depth knowledge of the camera industry >> financials), Rob Studdert, and myself were discussing Pentax's future." >> >> You were saying then that Pentax couldn't make money as a camaera maker. >> Well, guess what, you were wrong. > > John, > > Are you really this obtuse or just pretending to be? No one was saying > anything of the kind. We were saying that Pentax was in an undesirable > situation in the market place, volume-wise, profit-wise, and that it was > a > situation where Pentax was fighting an uphill battle against competition > that was much stronger. No one ever said they couldn't make money, > though > if you look at the facts they are making significantly less profit per > unit, > as was said back then. With the recent price drops on the K10D, the > profit > margin is likely shrinking further. It would appear that Pentax is selling more K10Ds than it expected. That suggests lower unit costs, and more profit. Lower prices, I grant, mean less profit. But since this division is making much more money than it did, it suggests that the effect of the former is outweighing the effect of the latter. >> The present situation is totally different. Hoya has come along with a >> good offer for Pentax because it thinks the medical business is >> complementary to what it is doing, and has made an offer which Sparxx >> thinks is too good to pass up. >> > Can't argue there. > >> And that's it. Herb had predicted that Pentax would be bust by now. He >> also said that when that happened, the price of second-hand Pentax >> lenses (of which he had lots) would rise. That's why he wanted Pentax >> to go >> bust. And that's why he kept publishing anti-Pentax material. And he >> was supported by you. > > Wrong. No one said absolutely when this would occur. No one said "bust". > I'm laughing as I write this because your perception of reality and the > written word is so different than what was stated. On top of that you're > attributing motive, when Herb has purchased a K10D and some of the newer > lenses. If he wanted them to go bust would he be adding to their bottom > line? He bought a K10D a long time after he was predicting Pentax's demise on here, and he did so because his predictions about Pentax going belly up were proved wrong. Herb's motive was obvious when he told us that lens prices would go up after Pentax went broke. It was a ridiculous belief, but it explained his strategy. > You still don't get that no one said what was going to happen or when, > just that it seemed likely it might. Good grief! If they didn't say WHAT would happen, how could they say that it MIGHT? This complete absence of logic is sadly characteristic of everything you say. Two names. Samsung. Hoya. Pentax is > not, right now the same company it was 2 months ago, or 6 months. They > will not be as autonomous as they once were (which may be the best > thing). >> >> He was of course as far from reality with that as with everything else. >> If Pentax does disappear, I would think it is much more likely that >> lenses will lose their value, but that the better bodies will gain. >> People will want to be sure that they have a working body to use their >> lenses with, so will buy one or two extra bodies as insurance. >> Certainly, that's what I >> shall do. >> >> John Oh brother. > Tom C. When you run out of arguments and self-justification you resort to "oh brother". Hopefully we will never find out whether my prediction is right or wrong. John -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
On 23/05/07, John Forbes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You were saying then that Pentax couldn't make money as a camaera maker. > Well, guess what, you were wrong. > The present situation is totally different. Hoya has come along with a > good offer for Pentax because it thinks the medical business is > complementary to what it is doing, and has made an offer which Sparxx > thinks is too good to pass up. They lost more money in two years than they would have made up in five even at their recently projected profit forecasts, that's called just getting by and whether you believe it or not obviously the market perception was such. -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://picasaweb.google.com/distudio/PESO http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
>image sensors generally become noisy over time and can suffer degradation >of their >Bayer filters and photosites due to overexposure. > >-- >Rob Studdert That does it. I'm not taking the lens cap off of my *ist D ever again! Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
A couple of hundred million dollars buys lots of perfume. :-) I'm not disputing whether the result of a merger was good or bad. Tom C. >From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >Subject: Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but... >Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 18:12:09 -0400 > >That still doesn't dissipate the whiff of failure that clings to them. > >Tom C wrote: > > Except for those executives walked away with multi-million dollar >severance > > packages and stock otions. > > > > > > Tom C. > > > > > > > >> From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >> Subject: Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but... > >> Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 16:28:21 -0400 > >> > >> I believe that Norm is being sarcastic, since Time/AOL and HP/Compaq > >> both lead to the executives who brought them about losing their > >> positions. Something that indicates something less than rousing >success. > >> > >> Ralf R. Radermacher wrote: > >> > >>> Norm Baugher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> Are you suggesting that the mergers like Time/AOL, HP/Compaq, > >>>> Daimler/Chrysler, etc. were not smashing successes? > >>>> > >>>> > >>> Daimler-Chryslera smashing success? You haven't just returned from a > >>> looong holiday at a Russian prison camp or a year-long coma, by any > >>> chance? > >>> > >>> Ralf > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> -- > >> All dogs have four legs; my cat has four legs. Therefore, my cat is a >dog. > >> > >> > >> -- > >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >> PDML@pdml.net > >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > >> > > > > > > > > > > >-- >All dogs have four legs; my cat has four legs. Therefore, my cat is a dog. > > >-- >PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >PDML@pdml.net >http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
William Robb wrote: > We used to get service peopl in from CX Systems to work on our rather flakey > Gretag 3140 printer. One of their favourite troubleshooting methods was to > take circuit boards from one machine and put them into the other one until > they moved the problem. > > > This is often known as shotgun debugging. You might enjoy reading this one: http://www.science.uva.nl/~mes/jargon/c/castingtherunes.html -- Scott Loveless www.twosixteen.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
On 23/05/07, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That said, electronics can fail occasionally but mechanical > components *will* fail. Some things, while theoretically possible to > repair, are very difficult to do so or too expensive to be worth the > effort in either case. In digital cameras some of the electronic components are relatively failure prone too. It's nil to do with planned obsolescence or manufacturing quality. LCDs can fail over time due to environmental exposure (light/temp), electrolytic capacitors fail as they dry out (pretty much inevitable), electroluminescent display back lighting fails over time due to phosphor degradation and image sensors generally become noisy over time and can suffer degradation of their Bayer filters and photosites due to overexposure. -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://picasaweb.google.com/distudio/PESO http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
My point is you spent 10 hours fixing a broken washer. I value my time at about $70.00 an hour spending 10 hours diagnosing something on that basis I would be $375 in the hole. Actually I replace about half of them as a prophylactic measure. Only two absolutely needed to be replaced, the rest were well on their way to failing and at less that $1.00 each it was well worth replacing them all at the same time. The switch was dodgey and on it's way to failure as well. I could probably have monkeyed around with to make it work better, but only a couple of bucks extra it seemed a no brainer to replace it at the same time. Tom C wrote: > I already told you, but what's your point? Mine is that I saved $325 I > didn't have free to spend on the unexpected problem. It's not that it was > hard, to fix because done once I could do it again in less than an hour. I'm > a clod when it comes to things mechanical. > > It sounds like you replaced lots of minor items without troubleshooting > them. Whereas I ran though the diagnostic flow chart, took off the drain > pump, checked it to see if it's clogged and operating correctly, etc. Much > of that, in the end, was time spent isolating the problem, not actually > repairing it. > > You can't make me feel bad about it. :-) > > Tom C. > > > >> From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> Subject: Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but... >> Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 16:26:43 -0400 >> >> How many hours did you spend fixing your washer? I replaced every >> important sensor and a switch, (essentially rebuilding the electrical >> system), in less that two hours. Most of that was figuring out how to >> take the back off. >> >> Tom C wrote: >> >>> I think the new technology is often easily repairable. It's just that >>> >> most >> >>> of the electronics is now manufactured overseas and it's incredibly >>> >> cheap. >> >>> A company makes more profit replacing an entire circuit board that costs >>> >> $20 >> >>> and charging $250 + 1 hour labor, than they do trouble shooting the >>> >> board >> >>> for an hour and replacing $.10 and $1.00 parts. For the company, time is >>> money. Also, the customer unable to diagnose othe problem, is happy just >>> >> to >> >>> get the serviceman in and out. >>> >>> Tom C. >>> >>> >>> >>>> From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>> Subject: Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but... >>>> Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 14:40:39 -0400 >>>> >>>> Front loads have been around for a long time, even here. The old >>>> technology is much easier to repair, and usually costs less than new >>>> electronic devices, which seem to designed to not be repaired. >>>> >>>> Tom C wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Well I don't claim to be a rocket scientist. It usually take me 2 or >>>>> >> 3 >> >>>>> trips to the parts store or tool store before I get things right >>>>> >> because >> >>>> I >>>> >>>> >>>>> learn as I go. I was happy to have saved at least $325. >>>>> >>>>> Two advantages of the newer front load washers (long popular in Europe >>>>> >>>>> >>>> and >>>> >>>> >>>>> only becoming popular in the USA over the last decade for home use) is >>>>> >>>>> >>>> that >>>> >>>> >>>>> they use about 1/3 the water as older top load washers and are much >>>>> >>>>> >>>> easier >>>> >>>> >>>>> on clothes. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Tom C. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>>> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
That still doesn't dissipate the whiff of failure that clings to them. Tom C wrote: > Except for those executives walked away with multi-million dollar severance > packages and stock otions. > > > Tom C. > > > >> From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> Subject: Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but... >> Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 16:28:21 -0400 >> >> I believe that Norm is being sarcastic, since Time/AOL and HP/Compaq >> both lead to the executives who brought them about losing their >> positions. Something that indicates something less than rousing success. >> >> Ralf R. Radermacher wrote: >> >>> Norm Baugher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> Are you suggesting that the mergers like Time/AOL, HP/Compaq, >>>> Daimler/Chrysler, etc. were not smashing successes? >>>> >>>> >>> Daimler-Chryslera smashing success? You haven't just returned from a >>> looong holiday at a Russian prison camp or a year-long coma, by any >>> chance? >>> >>> Ralf >>> >>> >>> >> -- >> All dogs have four legs; my cat has four legs. Therefore, my cat is a dog. >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> > > > > -- All dogs have four legs; my cat has four legs. Therefore, my cat is a dog. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
> >He was of course as far from reality with that as with everything else. >If Pentax does disappear, I would think it is much more likely that lenses >will lose their value, but that the better bodies will gain. People will >want to be sure that they have a working body to use their lenses with, so >will buy one or two extra bodies as insurance. Certainly, that's what I >shall do. > >John > I have an idea!!! Let's all buy those spare bodies now. Why wait till later? That way we can haul Pentax out of this predicament. I sure hope they can make them fast enough. Anyone out there not good for $2K? Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
See below where I blather in response to your blather. >From: "John Forbes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" >Subject: Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but... >Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 22:17:37 +0100 > >On Tue, 22 May 2007 17:27:02 +0100, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> Tom, > >> > >> Neither you nor Herb had or have the slightest idea what you are >talking > >> about. > >> > >> Pentax is in better shape now than it was two years ago. What has > >> changed > >> is that it has a major shareholder that owns enough shares to call the > >> shots. And that major shareholder has no interest in cameras, it just > >> wants to make money. It believes that it is in its best interests to > >> sell > >> its shares to Hoya now for 770 yen than to hang on to them and see > >> whether > >> the Pentax board can do better. > > > > None of that matters John. We're not talking about how much money >Pentax > > has, whether they are in better shape than previously because of turning > > a > > profit with the camera division, or anything like that. It doesn't > > matter > > whether their major shareholders have an interest in cameras. > > > > What does matter is that it's shareholders 'want to make money'. That's > > the > > reason for being a shareholder. That's an expectation that shareholders > > have. It's one that Pentax cannot ignore for very long. > > > > That's why all your arguments over whether Pentax produces good bodies, > > good > > lenses, is making money, etc., have had little bearing on the end >result. > > What has happened is a scenario not unlike that which we were suggesting > > could happen two years ago. Even Pentax's higher-ups realize that > > without > > the backing of a larger firm, they likely can't compete effectively. > > From > > an earlier Bloomberg report including quotes from Pentax's former > > President > > Urano: > > > > --- > > > > Pentax is losing market share in the camera business because of price > > declines and competition from Canon Inc. and Sony Corp. The company is > > counting on medical equipment including endoscopes, a business it > > entered in > > 1977, to spur growth. > > > > Hoya, whose market value of 1.73 trillion yen is more than 17 times > > larger > > than Pentax's, is seeking to expand sales of medical equipment such as > > endoscopes and surgical scissors to rely less on glass substrates used >in > > semiconductor manufacturing. > > > > Pentax in October cut its full-year profit forecast because of price > > declines of parts used in digital cameras. The company projects 31 > > billion > > yen in net income for the year ended March, less than a previous >estimate > > for 34 billion yen. > > > > Operating profit at the optical components division, which includes > > digital > > camera parts, is forecast to fall for three years, Pentax said in a > > statement in November. > > > > At its life-care division, which sells medical equipment, operating > > profit > > rose in the past three years. > > > > ``It is really difficult for Pentax to go our own way,'' Urano said. > > ``Hoya > > was the best selection. I'm truly worried about my employees.'' > > > > - > > > > So who doesn't know what they're talking about? > > > > Tom C. > >"Quote: Well, guess what? The sky IS falling. Two or more years ago those >taunts >were voiced when Herb (who has in depth knowledge of the camera industry >financials), Rob Studdert, and myself were discussing Pentax's future." > >You were saying then that Pentax couldn't make money as a camaera maker. >Well, guess what, you were wrong. John, Are you really this obtuse or just pretending to be? No one was saying anything of the kind. We were saying that Pentax was in an undesirable situation in the market place, volume-wise, profit-wise, and that it was a situation where Pentax was fighting an uphill battle against competition that was much stronger. No one ever said they couldn't make money, though if you look at the facts they are making significantly less profit per unit, as was said back then. With the recent price drops on the K10D, the profit margin is likely shrinking further. >The pres
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
On Tue, 22 May 2007 17:27:02 +0100, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Tom, >> >> Neither you nor Herb had or have the slightest idea what you are talking >> about. >> >> Pentax is in better shape now than it was two years ago. What has >> changed >> is that it has a major shareholder that owns enough shares to call the >> shots. And that major shareholder has no interest in cameras, it just >> wants to make money. It believes that it is in its best interests to >> sell >> its shares to Hoya now for 770 yen than to hang on to them and see >> whether >> the Pentax board can do better. > > None of that matters John. We're not talking about how much money Pentax > has, whether they are in better shape than previously because of turning > a > profit with the camera division, or anything like that. It doesn't > matter > whether their major shareholders have an interest in cameras. > > What does matter is that it's shareholders 'want to make money'. That's > the > reason for being a shareholder. That's an expectation that shareholders > have. It's one that Pentax cannot ignore for very long. > > That's why all your arguments over whether Pentax produces good bodies, > good > lenses, is making money, etc., have had little bearing on the end result. > What has happened is a scenario not unlike that which we were suggesting > could happen two years ago. Even Pentax's higher-ups realize that > without > the backing of a larger firm, they likely can't compete effectively. > From > an earlier Bloomberg report including quotes from Pentax's former > President > Urano: > > --- > > Pentax is losing market share in the camera business because of price > declines and competition from Canon Inc. and Sony Corp. The company is > counting on medical equipment including endoscopes, a business it > entered in > 1977, to spur growth. > > Hoya, whose market value of 1.73 trillion yen is more than 17 times > larger > than Pentax's, is seeking to expand sales of medical equipment such as > endoscopes and surgical scissors to rely less on glass substrates used in > semiconductor manufacturing. > > Pentax in October cut its full-year profit forecast because of price > declines of parts used in digital cameras. The company projects 31 > billion > yen in net income for the year ended March, less than a previous estimate > for 34 billion yen. > > Operating profit at the optical components division, which includes > digital > camera parts, is forecast to fall for three years, Pentax said in a > statement in November. > > At its life-care division, which sells medical equipment, operating > profit > rose in the past three years. > > ``It is really difficult for Pentax to go our own way,'' Urano said. > ``Hoya > was the best selection. I'm truly worried about my employees.'' > > - > > So who doesn't know what they're talking about? > > Tom C. "Quote: Well, guess what? The sky IS falling. Two or more years ago those taunts were voiced when Herb (who has in depth knowledge of the camera industry financials), Rob Studdert, and myself were discussing Pentax's future." You were saying then that Pentax couldn't make money as a camaera maker. Well, guess what, you were wrong. The present situation is totally different. Hoya has come along with a good offer for Pentax because it thinks the medical business is complementary to what it is doing, and has made an offer which Sparxx thinks is too good to pass up. And that's it. Herb had predicted that Pentax would be bust by now. He also said that when that happened, the price of second-hand Pentax lenses (of which he had lots) would rise. That's why he wanted Pentax to go bust. And that's why he kept publishing anti-Pentax material. And he was supported by you. He was of course as far from reality with that as with everything else. If Pentax does disappear, I would think it is much more likely that lenses will lose their value, but that the better bodies will gain. People will want to be sure that they have a working body to use their lenses with, so will buy one or two extra bodies as insurance. Certainly, that's what I shall do. John -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
Yawn ;-) Tim Typo Mostly Harmless - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 8:47 PM Subject: Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but... > > -- Original message -- > From: Wilko Bulte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 02:03:32PM -0400, Norm Baugher wrote.. >> > Are you suggesting that the mergers like Time/AOL, HP/Compaq, >> > Daimler/Chrysler, etc. were not smashing successes? >> >> Daimler-Chrysler definitely was not a smashing success.. >> > It could have been. Unfortunately, some pigheaded people were involved. > Paul > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.6/815 - Release Date: 22.05.2007 > 15:49 > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
I already told you, but what's your point? Mine is that I saved $325 I didn't have free to spend on the unexpected problem. It's not that it was hard, to fix because done once I could do it again in less than an hour. I'm a clod when it comes to things mechanical. It sounds like you replaced lots of minor items without troubleshooting them. Whereas I ran though the diagnostic flow chart, took off the drain pump, checked it to see if it's clogged and operating correctly, etc. Much of that, in the end, was time spent isolating the problem, not actually repairing it. You can't make me feel bad about it. :-) Tom C. >From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >Subject: Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but... >Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 16:26:43 -0400 > >How many hours did you spend fixing your washer? I replaced every >important sensor and a switch, (essentially rebuilding the electrical >system), in less that two hours. Most of that was figuring out how to >take the back off. > >Tom C wrote: > > I think the new technology is often easily repairable. It's just that >most > > of the electronics is now manufactured overseas and it's incredibly >cheap. > > A company makes more profit replacing an entire circuit board that costs >$20 > > and charging $250 + 1 hour labor, than they do trouble shooting the >board > > for an hour and replacing $.10 and $1.00 parts. For the company, time is > > money. Also, the customer unable to diagnose othe problem, is happy just >to > > get the serviceman in and out. > > > > Tom C. > > > > > >> From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >> Subject: Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but... > >> Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 14:40:39 -0400 > >> > >> Front loads have been around for a long time, even here. The old > >> technology is much easier to repair, and usually costs less than new > >> electronic devices, which seem to designed to not be repaired. > >> > >> Tom C wrote: > >> > >>> Well I don't claim to be a rocket scientist. It usually take me 2 or >3 > >>> trips to the parts store or tool store before I get things right >because > >>> > >> I > >> > >>> learn as I go. I was happy to have saved at least $325. > >>> > >>> Two advantages of the newer front load washers (long popular in Europe > >>> > >> and > >> > >>> only becoming popular in the USA over the last decade for home use) is > >>> > >> that > >> > >>> they use about 1/3 the water as older top load washers and are much > >>> > >> easier > >> > >>> on clothes. > >>> > >>> > >>> Tom C. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >>>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >>>> Subject: Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but... > >>>> Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 12:49:04 -0400 > >>>> > >>>> And it drys cloths no better than the 30 year old dryer I bought for > >>>> $25.00 12 years ago, and fixed for less than $10. Replacing all of >the > >>>> temperature sensors and door switch in less than two hours. (I ended > >>>> > >> up > >> > >>>> giving it away 6 months ago as I had no place to store it). > >>>> > >>>> Tom C wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>> What all these problems really indicate is how cheap, low-spec most > >>>>>> of the electronic components being used are, even in high-end > >>>>>> cameras. Curiously, my 1966 RCA transistor radio that cost me $20 > >>>>>> (expensive back then!) is still going strong. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Godfrey > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> Likely planned obsolescence? > >>>>> > >>>>> On a side note, I just fixed our 2000 Maytag Neptune washer which >had > >>>>> stopped spinning clothes in the spin cycle.
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
Except for those executives walked away with multi-million dollar severance packages and stock otions. Tom C. >From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >Subject: Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but... >Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 16:28:21 -0400 > >I believe that Norm is being sarcastic, since Time/AOL and HP/Compaq >both lead to the executives who brought them about losing their >positions. Something that indicates something less than rousing success. > >Ralf R. Radermacher wrote: > > Norm Baugher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >> Are you suggesting that the mergers like Time/AOL, HP/Compaq, > >> Daimler/Chrysler, etc. were not smashing successes? > >> > > > > Daimler-Chryslera smashing success? You haven't just returned from a > > looong holiday at a Russian prison camp or a year-long coma, by any > > chance? > > > > Ralf > > > > > > >-- >All dogs have four legs; my cat has four legs. Therefore, my cat is a dog. > > >-- >PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >PDML@pdml.net >http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
Last report I saw, I seem to remember Sparx owning a bit less than 30%. Gonz wrote: > On 5/22/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> In a message dated 5/22/2007 11:04:57 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >> I dont know why Pentax does not just take a poison pill if it does not >> want to be acquired by Hoya. I.e. take on alot of debt and buy back >> tons of its stock. Isnt that what american companies do with some >> hostile takeovers? Maybe its not an option in Japan? >> >> rg >> >> = >> Sparx. Come on, Pentax really doesn't want their stock to plummet. News >> stories have been saying that Japanese investment groups/companies >> (whatever they >> are called) are becoming rather aggressive now in determing the course of >> the company they are invested in. Not just with Pentax. >> > > If Sparx owns a majority or close to a majority of the shares, you are > right, it wont happen. More likely is what P.A. said: this kind of > uncivilized behavior does not happen in Japan. If Sparx does not own > a majority and it was a US company, this could happen, and the stock > price might actually go up. > > >> Kamakasi Pentax? >> >> Hara-Kiri Pentax? >> >> I'd prefer... >> >> Samurai Pentax. Huyah! Whomp! Take that (fill in the blank)!!! >> >> Marnie aka Doe ;-) >> >> - >> Warning: I am now filtering my email, so you may be censored. >> >> >> >> >> ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> >> > > -- All dogs have four legs; my cat has four legs. Therefore, my cat is a dog. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
I believe that Norm is being sarcastic, since Time/AOL and HP/Compaq both lead to the executives who brought them about losing their positions. Something that indicates something less than rousing success. Ralf R. Radermacher wrote: > Norm Baugher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> Are you suggesting that the mergers like Time/AOL, HP/Compaq, >> Daimler/Chrysler, etc. were not smashing successes? >> > > Daimler-Chryslera smashing success? You haven't just returned from a > looong holiday at a Russian prison camp or a year-long coma, by any > chance? > > Ralf > > -- All dogs have four legs; my cat has four legs. Therefore, my cat is a dog. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
How many hours did you spend fixing your washer? I replaced every important sensor and a switch, (essentially rebuilding the electrical system), in less that two hours. Most of that was figuring out how to take the back off. Tom C wrote: > I think the new technology is often easily repairable. It's just that most > of the electronics is now manufactured overseas and it's incredibly cheap. > A company makes more profit replacing an entire circuit board that costs $20 > and charging $250 + 1 hour labor, than they do trouble shooting the board > for an hour and replacing $.10 and $1.00 parts. For the company, time is > money. Also, the customer unable to diagnose othe problem, is happy just to > get the serviceman in and out. > > Tom C. > > >> From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> Subject: Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but... >> Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 14:40:39 -0400 >> >> Front loads have been around for a long time, even here. The old >> technology is much easier to repair, and usually costs less than new >> electronic devices, which seem to designed to not be repaired. >> >> Tom C wrote: >> >>> Well I don't claim to be a rocket scientist. It usually take me 2 or 3 >>> trips to the parts store or tool store before I get things right because >>> >> I >> >>> learn as I go. I was happy to have saved at least $325. >>> >>> Two advantages of the newer front load washers (long popular in Europe >>> >> and >> >>> only becoming popular in the USA over the last decade for home use) is >>> >> that >> >>> they use about 1/3 the water as older top load washers and are much >>> >> easier >> >>> on clothes. >>> >>> >>> Tom C. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>> Subject: Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but... >>>> Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 12:49:04 -0400 >>>> >>>> And it drys cloths no better than the 30 year old dryer I bought for >>>> $25.00 12 years ago, and fixed for less than $10. Replacing all of the >>>> temperature sensors and door switch in less than two hours. (I ended >>>> >> up >> >>>> giving it away 6 months ago as I had no place to store it). >>>> >>>> Tom C wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>> What all these problems really indicate is how cheap, low-spec most >>>>>> of the electronic components being used are, even in high-end >>>>>> cameras. Curiously, my 1966 RCA transistor radio that cost me $20 >>>>>> (expensive back then!) is still going strong. >>>>>> >>>>>> Godfrey >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Likely planned obsolescence? >>>>> >>>>> On a side note, I just fixed our 2000 Maytag Neptune washer which had >>>>> stopped spinning clothes in the spin cycle. If it had failed about >>>>> >> two >> >>>> yeas >>>> >>>> >>>>> ago I could have gotten it fixed for free under the terms of a class >>>>> >>>>> >>>> action >>>> >>>> >>>>> lawsuit. >>>>> >>>>> It was going to cost upwards of $400 for a service call, an entire new >>>>> >>>>> >>>> main >>>> >>>> >>>>> control board, and an item called a wax motor which is essential to >>>>> >>>>> >>>> locking >>>> >>>> >>>>> the door. I replaced the wax motor (ultimate source of the problem) >>>>> >>>>> >>>> along >>>> >>>> >>>>> with a blown resistor and two transistors on the main board. In the >>>>> >>>>> >>>> process >>>> >>>> >>>>> I ruined a metal 'leaf' spring that holds the wax motor in place and >>>>> >>>>> >>>> super >>>> >>>> >>>>> glued a switch closed, until the new parts arrived. Cost of my repair >>>>> including parts which I runied in the process was under $75 dollars, >>>>> >>>>> >>>> though >>>> >>>> >>>>> I have about 10 hours invested in it. >>>>> >>>>> Tom C. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> All dogs have four legs; my cat has four legs. Therefore, my cat is a >>>> >> dog. >> >>>> -- >>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>> PDML@pdml.net >>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> -- >> All dogs have four legs; my cat has four legs. Therefore, my cat is a dog. >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> > > > > -- All dogs have four legs; my cat has four legs. Therefore, my cat is a dog. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
Reports have it both ways, like so much of this story. Tom C wrote: > I could be mistaken, but I thought it was Pentax that originally approached > Hoya regarding a merger. > > Tom C. > > > >> From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> Subject: Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but... >> Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 13:53:24 -0400 >> >> It's seldom that the results of such a merger are better than building >> the business you already have. Most such mergers result in >> disappointment. (That doesn't stop them from happening however). A >> classic example was Sperry and Burroughs merging in 1986 to take >> advantage of their "Synergy", the final market share resulting from the >> merger was less that either one had before the merger. Most seem to work >> out that way. The spectacular successes, (which they are few and far >> between), are what keep M&A groups going, but don't ask them about their >> success ratio. >> >> Tom C wrote: >> >>>> From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> >>>> Remember the plan to continue to make cameras was assumed by Pentax. >>>> Hoya's plans were unknown but hinted at by their CFO, which seems to >>>> have precipitated the unpleasantness. By the way if Hoya is so strong >>>> and Pentax's prospects are so bleek, why didn't Hoya just say, then >>>> >> have >> >>>> it your way, and walk away? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> Because they are interested in increasing the sales and profits of their >>> medical division. >>> >>> Tom C. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> -- >> All dogs have four legs; my cat has four legs. Therefore, my cat is a dog. >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> > > > > -- All dogs have four legs; my cat has four legs. Therefore, my cat is a dog. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
> > >I think the new technology is often easily repairable. It's just that >most > > of the electronics is now manufactured overseas and it's incredibly >cheap. > > A company makes more profit replacing an entire circuit board that costs > > $20 > > and charging $250 + 1 hour labor, than they do trouble shooting the >board > > for an hour and replacing $.10 and $1.00 parts. For the company, time is > > money. Also, the customer unable to diagnose othe problem, is happy just > > to > > get the serviceman in and out. > >We used to get service peopl in from CX Systems to work on our rather >flakey >Gretag 3140 printer. One of their favourite troubleshooting methods was to >take circuit boards from one machine and put them into the other one until >they moved the problem. > >William Robb > The additional benefit is that companies can hire relatively unskilled labor to do this kind of troubleshooting. One doesn't often need to understand electronics, read schematics, or use test equipment to fix the fault. It's more like making toast in a toaster. Then you get charged 100x or 1000x what the repair should really cost, and they pay the poor dweeb that swaps the boards relatively low pay. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
William Robb wrote: > - Original Message - > From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi" > Subject: Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but... > > > >>> The F2 uses S/76 or Dl1/3N lithiums. I think the DP-2 head has better >>> components than the older F Photomic heads. They seem to be pretty >>> bomb >>> proof. >>> >> Hmm. I could swear my F and F2 both used PX-13 batteries, but then >> it's been way too long since I sold the F2... >> > > My old F Photomic used a PX13 battery that went into the metering head. > There was no power in the body at all. The F2 put the battery into the body, > in the traditional spot under the bottom plate. > I just recently bought myself an F2 to replace the one that I let go of back > about 20 years ago. I still think the F2s is the best 35mm SLR ever made. > > William Robb > > The F2's a wonderful beast. I picked up a late-production black one with a DP-11 head a few months ago and it's quickly become one of my two main film bodies. I'd take the F2A or F2AS over the F2S though, AI coupling is less hassle. And the DP-11 (F2A head) is noted as the most reliable of the F2 metered finders. -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
On 5/22/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In a message dated 5/22/2007 11:04:57 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > I dont know why Pentax does not just take a poison pill if it does not > want to be acquired by Hoya. I.e. take on alot of debt and buy back > tons of its stock. Isnt that what american companies do with some > hostile takeovers? Maybe its not an option in Japan? > > rg > > = > Sparx. Come on, Pentax really doesn't want their stock to plummet. News > stories have been saying that Japanese investment groups/companies (whatever > they > are called) are becoming rather aggressive now in determing the course of > the company they are invested in. Not just with Pentax. If Sparx owns a majority or close to a majority of the shares, you are right, it wont happen. More likely is what P.A. said: this kind of uncivilized behavior does not happen in Japan. If Sparx does not own a majority and it was a US company, this could happen, and the stock price might actually go up. > > Kamakasi Pentax? > > Hara-Kiri Pentax? > > I'd prefer... > > Samurai Pentax. Huyah! Whomp! Take that (fill in the blank)!!! > > Marnie aka Doe ;-) > > - > Warning: I am now filtering my email, so you may be censored. > > > > > ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
The key word is majority, but for this type of move it would be the majority of the board not the shareholders. Its not always the same thing, at least not here. The board does not have to take this type of move to a general vote, maybe its different in Japan. The hostile company can however, request a special vote to dump the board, which has happened in the past. On 5/22/07, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's still accountable to it's shareholders and if the majority of them > don't want to go that route it's hard to buck them off your back. > > The whole thing is a fiasco. It was Pentax's former President (who is > credited, justly or unjustly, with bringing the camera division back to > profitability) that saw the benefits of a merger. It was their new > management that backed out, then threw tantrums, blew smoke with profit and > volume proclamations that the industry viewed as unattainable, and now has > slinked back to the table. > > According to Japanese reports it was an internal management feud that > brought this about. > > http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/editorial/20070522TDY04005.htm > > Tom C. > > >From: Gonz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" > >Subject: Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but... > >Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 12:52:37 -0500 > > > >I dont know why Pentax does not just take a poison pill if it does not > >want to be acquired by Hoya. I.e. take on alot of debt and buy back > >tons of its stock. Isnt that what american companies do with some > >hostile takeovers? Maybe its not an option in Japan? > > > >rg > > > > > >On 5/21/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > In a message dated 5/21/2007 11:57:51 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > Personally I don't think Pentax is going down the drain in the > >immediate > > > future (6 months - 1 year). On the other hand, I have no idea how long > >of a > > > future they have. Hoya may take the camera division under their wing, > >and > > > then if they're not successful enough, spin them off or sell them. > >There's > > > an infinite number of scenarios that could occur. > > > > > > Tom C. > > > > > > > > > Yes, while I hate to agree with you, I do. :-) At least re infinite > > > scenarios. > > > > > > I think Pentaxes DSLRs have been too successful recently for I think > >Hoya > > > just to trash them. Also the recent news is that Pentax is going for a > > > subsidiary deal with independent management. But that doesn't mean that > >down the > > > road, if the cameras start losing money, that Hoya won't cut them out > >then. > > > > > > OTOH, maybe Hoya will pour some serious money into Pentax R&D and > >marketing > > > and beef them up. With earlier lens releases (or on time lens releases) > >and > > > some new DSLRs, well... with enough money invested Pentax could > >actually > > > become a player. > > > > > > But it's still too hard to predict anything right now. The deal is not > >even > > > finalized. > > > > > > I just hope that Hoya is smart enough to realize the second scenario I > >gave > > > above is as likely as the first. > > > > > > Marnie aka Doe > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ** See what's free at > >http://www.aol.com. > > > > > > -- > > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > > PDML@pdml.net > > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > > > >-- > >PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >PDML@pdml.net > >http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
>Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > A company makes more profit replacing an entire circuit board that >costs $20 > > and charging $250 + 1 hour labor, than they do trouble shooting the >board > > for an hour and replacing $.10 and $1.00 parts. > >Not to forget that formerly service departments used to be seen as >necessary cost factors whereas nowadays even the last shithouse inside >every organization has been turned into what they call a "profit >centre". > >Ralf > LOL. I was wondering why I had to swipe my badge when entering/exitting the restroom. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
- Original Message - From: "Tom C" Subject: Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but... >I think the new technology is often easily repairable. It's just that most > of the electronics is now manufactured overseas and it's incredibly cheap. > A company makes more profit replacing an entire circuit board that costs > $20 > and charging $250 + 1 hour labor, than they do trouble shooting the board > for an hour and replacing $.10 and $1.00 parts. For the company, time is > money. Also, the customer unable to diagnose othe problem, is happy just > to > get the serviceman in and out. We used to get service peopl in from CX Systems to work on our rather flakey Gretag 3140 printer. One of their favourite troubleshooting methods was to take circuit boards from one machine and put them into the other one until they moved the problem. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
- Original Message - From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi" Subject: Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but... > >> The F2 uses S/76 or Dl1/3N lithiums. I think the DP-2 head has better >> components than the older F Photomic heads. They seem to be pretty >> bomb >> proof. > > Hmm. I could swear my F and F2 both used PX-13 batteries, but then > it's been way too long since I sold the F2... My old F Photomic used a PX13 battery that went into the metering head. There was no power in the body at all. The F2 put the battery into the body, in the traditional spot under the bottom plate. I just recently bought myself an F2 to replace the one that I let go of back about 20 years ago. I still think the F2s is the best 35mm SLR ever made. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
He was being facetious, Ralf. -- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ralf R. Radermacher) > Norm Baugher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Are you suggesting that the mergers like Time/AOL, HP/Compaq, > > Daimler/Chrysler, etc. were not smashing successes? > > Daimler-Chryslera smashing success? You haven't just returned from a > looong holiday at a Russian prison camp or a year-long coma, by any > chance? > > Ralf > > -- > Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany > private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de > manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005 > Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A company makes more profit replacing an entire circuit board that costs $20 > and charging $250 + 1 hour labor, than they do trouble shooting the board > for an hour and replacing $.10 and $1.00 parts. Not to forget that formerly service departments used to be seen as necessary cost factors whereas nowadays even the last shithouse inside every organization has been turned into what they call a "profit centre". Ralf -- Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005 Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
Norm Baugher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Are you suggesting that the mergers like Time/AOL, HP/Compaq, > Daimler/Chrysler, etc. were not smashing successes? Daimler-Chryslera smashing success? You haven't just returned from a looong holiday at a Russian prison camp or a year-long coma, by any chance? Ralf -- Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005 Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
It's an editorial, where you can make up facts, and imagine any motives that you want. It's also only one individuals opinion. I think that the Pentax Board probably knows better what's going to happen to their company than any of us do. They may well be thinking of the stock holders... Tom C wrote: > It's still accountable to it's shareholders and if the majority of them > don't want to go that route it's hard to buck them off your back. > > The whole thing is a fiasco. It was Pentax's former President (who is > credited, justly or unjustly, with bringing the camera division back to > profitability) that saw the benefits of a merger. It was their new > management that backed out, then threw tantrums, blew smoke with profit and > volume proclamations that the industry viewed as unattainable, and now has > slinked back to the table. > > According to Japanese reports it was an internal management feud that > brought this about. > > http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/editorial/20070522TDY04005.htm > > Tom C. > > >> From: Gonz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" >> Subject: Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but... >> Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 12:52:37 -0500 >> >> I dont know why Pentax does not just take a poison pill if it does not >> want to be acquired by Hoya. I.e. take on alot of debt and buy back >> tons of its stock. Isnt that what american companies do with some >> hostile takeovers? Maybe its not an option in Japan? >> >> rg >> >> >> On 5/21/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> In a message dated 5/21/2007 11:57:51 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >>> Personally I don't think Pentax is going down the drain in the >>> >> immediate >> >>> future (6 months - 1 year). On the other hand, I have no idea how long >>> >> of a >> >>> future they have. Hoya may take the camera division under their wing, >>> >> and >> >>> then if they're not successful enough, spin them off or sell them. >>> >> There's >> >>> an infinite number of scenarios that could occur. >>> >>> Tom C. >>> >>> >>> Yes, while I hate to agree with you, I do. :-) At least re infinite >>> scenarios. >>> >>> I think Pentaxes DSLRs have been too successful recently for I think >>> >> Hoya >> >>> just to trash them. Also the recent news is that Pentax is going for a >>> subsidiary deal with independent management. But that doesn't mean that >>> >> down the >> >>> road, if the cameras start losing money, that Hoya won't cut them out >>> >> then. >> >>> OTOH, maybe Hoya will pour some serious money into Pentax R&D and >>> >> marketing >> >>> and beef them up. With earlier lens releases (or on time lens releases) >>> >> and >> >>> some new DSLRs, well... with enough money invested Pentax could >>> >> actually >> >>> become a player. >>> >>> But it's still too hard to predict anything right now. The deal is not >>> >> even >> >>> finalized. >>> >>> I just hope that Hoya is smart enough to realize the second scenario I >>> >> gave >> >>> above is as likely as the first. >>> >>> Marnie aka Doe >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ** See what's free at >>> >> http://www.aol.com. >> >>> -- >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> PDML@pdml.net >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>> >>> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> > > > > -- All dogs have four legs; my cat has four legs. Therefore, my cat is a dog. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
It's a big deal in Japan, if Pentax declines, and Hoya mounts a hostile takeover it will be a first for Japan, or so it's been reported. The Japanese are very polite and to not find agreement is just too uncivilized. Gonz wrote: > I dont know why Pentax does not just take a poison pill if it does not > want to be acquired by Hoya. I.e. take on alot of debt and buy back > tons of its stock. Isnt that what american companies do with some > hostile takeovers? Maybe its not an option in Japan? > > rg > > > On 5/21/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> In a message dated 5/21/2007 11:57:51 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >> Personally I don't think Pentax is going down the drain in the immediate >> future (6 months - 1 year). On the other hand, I have no idea how long of a >> future they have. Hoya may take the camera division under their wing, and >> then if they're not successful enough, spin them off or sell them. There's >> an infinite number of scenarios that could occur. >> >> Tom C. >> >> >> Yes, while I hate to agree with you, I do. :-) At least re infinite >> scenarios. >> >> I think Pentaxes DSLRs have been too successful recently for I think Hoya >> just to trash them. Also the recent news is that Pentax is going for a >> subsidiary deal with independent management. But that doesn't mean that >> down the >> road, if the cameras start losing money, that Hoya won't cut them out then. >> >> OTOH, maybe Hoya will pour some serious money into Pentax R&D and marketing >> and beef them up. With earlier lens releases (or on time lens releases) and >> some new DSLRs, well... with enough money invested Pentax could actually >> become a player. >> >> But it's still too hard to predict anything right now. The deal is not even >> finalized. >> >> I just hope that Hoya is smart enough to realize the second scenario I gave >> above is as likely as the first. >> >> Marnie aka Doe >> >> >> >> >> ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> >> > > -- All dogs have four legs; my cat has four legs. Therefore, my cat is a dog. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
-- Original message -- From: Wilko Bulte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 02:03:32PM -0400, Norm Baugher wrote.. > > Are you suggesting that the mergers like Time/AOL, HP/Compaq, > > Daimler/Chrysler, etc. were not smashing successes? > > Daimler-Chrysler definitely was not a smashing success.. > It could have been. Unfortunately, some pigheaded people were involved. Paul -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
I think the new technology is often easily repairable. It's just that most of the electronics is now manufactured overseas and it's incredibly cheap. A company makes more profit replacing an entire circuit board that costs $20 and charging $250 + 1 hour labor, than they do trouble shooting the board for an hour and replacing $.10 and $1.00 parts. For the company, time is money. Also, the customer unable to diagnose othe problem, is happy just to get the serviceman in and out. Tom C. >From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >Subject: Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but... >Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 14:40:39 -0400 > >Front loads have been around for a long time, even here. The old >technology is much easier to repair, and usually costs less than new >electronic devices, which seem to designed to not be repaired. > >Tom C wrote: > > Well I don't claim to be a rocket scientist. It usually take me 2 or 3 > > trips to the parts store or tool store before I get things right because >I > > learn as I go. I was happy to have saved at least $325. > > > > Two advantages of the newer front load washers (long popular in Europe >and > > only becoming popular in the USA over the last decade for home use) is >that > > they use about 1/3 the water as older top load washers and are much >easier > > on clothes. > > > > > > Tom C. > > > > > > > >> From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >> Subject: Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but... > >> Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 12:49:04 -0400 > >> > >> And it drys cloths no better than the 30 year old dryer I bought for > >> $25.00 12 years ago, and fixed for less than $10. Replacing all of the > >> temperature sensors and door switch in less than two hours. (I ended >up > >> giving it away 6 months ago as I had no place to store it). > >> > >> Tom C wrote: > >> > >>>> What all these problems really indicate is how cheap, low-spec most > >>>> of the electronic components being used are, even in high-end > >>>> cameras. Curiously, my 1966 RCA transistor radio that cost me $20 > >>>> (expensive back then!) is still going strong. > >>>> > >>>> Godfrey > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> Likely planned obsolescence? > >>> > >>> On a side note, I just fixed our 2000 Maytag Neptune washer which had > >>> stopped spinning clothes in the spin cycle. If it had failed about >two > >>> > >> yeas > >> > >>> ago I could have gotten it fixed for free under the terms of a class > >>> > >> action > >> > >>> lawsuit. > >>> > >>> It was going to cost upwards of $400 for a service call, an entire new > >>> > >> main > >> > >>> control board, and an item called a wax motor which is essential to > >>> > >> locking > >> > >>> the door. I replaced the wax motor (ultimate source of the problem) > >>> > >> along > >> > >>> with a blown resistor and two transistors on the main board. In the > >>> > >> process > >> > >>> I ruined a metal 'leaf' spring that holds the wax motor in place and > >>> > >> super > >> > >>> glued a switch closed, until the new parts arrived. Cost of my repair > >>> including parts which I runied in the process was under $75 dollars, > >>> > >> though > >> > >>> I have about 10 hours invested in it. > >>> > >>> Tom C. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> -- > >> All dogs have four legs; my cat has four legs. Therefore, my cat is a >dog. > >> > >> > >> -- > >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >> PDML@pdml.net > >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > >> > > > > > > > > > > >-- >All dogs have four legs; my cat has four legs. Therefore, my cat is a dog. > > >-- >PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >PDML@pdml.net >http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
Front loads have been around for a long time, even here. The old technology is much easier to repair, and usually costs less than new electronic devices, which seem to designed to not be repaired. Tom C wrote: > Well I don't claim to be a rocket scientist. It usually take me 2 or 3 > trips to the parts store or tool store before I get things right because I > learn as I go. I was happy to have saved at least $325. > > Two advantages of the newer front load washers (long popular in Europe and > only becoming popular in the USA over the last decade for home use) is that > they use about 1/3 the water as older top load washers and are much easier > on clothes. > > > Tom C. > > > >> From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> Subject: Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but... >> Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 12:49:04 -0400 >> >> And it drys cloths no better than the 30 year old dryer I bought for >> $25.00 12 years ago, and fixed for less than $10. Replacing all of the >> temperature sensors and door switch in less than two hours. (I ended up >> giving it away 6 months ago as I had no place to store it). >> >> Tom C wrote: >> >>>> What all these problems really indicate is how cheap, low-spec most >>>> of the electronic components being used are, even in high-end >>>> cameras. Curiously, my 1966 RCA transistor radio that cost me $20 >>>> (expensive back then!) is still going strong. >>>> >>>> Godfrey >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> Likely planned obsolescence? >>> >>> On a side note, I just fixed our 2000 Maytag Neptune washer which had >>> stopped spinning clothes in the spin cycle. If it had failed about two >>> >> yeas >> >>> ago I could have gotten it fixed for free under the terms of a class >>> >> action >> >>> lawsuit. >>> >>> It was going to cost upwards of $400 for a service call, an entire new >>> >> main >> >>> control board, and an item called a wax motor which is essential to >>> >> locking >> >>> the door. I replaced the wax motor (ultimate source of the problem) >>> >> along >> >>> with a blown resistor and two transistors on the main board. In the >>> >> process >> >>> I ruined a metal 'leaf' spring that holds the wax motor in place and >>> >> super >> >>> glued a switch closed, until the new parts arrived. Cost of my repair >>> including parts which I runied in the process was under $75 dollars, >>> >> though >> >>> I have about 10 hours invested in it. >>> >>> Tom C. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> -- >> All dogs have four legs; my cat has four legs. Therefore, my cat is a dog. >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> > > > > -- All dogs have four legs; my cat has four legs. Therefore, my cat is a dog. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
I think history speaks for itself. Norm Baugher wrote: > Are you suggesting that the mergers like Time/AOL, HP/Compaq, > Daimler/Chrysler, etc. were not smashing successes? > Norm > > P. J. Alling wrote: > >> It's seldom that the results of such a merger are better than building >> the business you already have. Most such mergers result in >> disappointment. (That doesn't stop them from happening however). A >> classic example was Sperry and Burroughs merging in 1986 to take >> advantage of their "Synergy", the final market share resulting from the >> merger was less that either one had before the merger. Most seem to work >> out that way. The spectacular successes, (which they are few and far >> between), are what keep M&A groups going, but don't ask them about their >> success ratio. >> >> > > > -- All dogs have four legs; my cat has four legs. Therefore, my cat is a dog. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
On May 22, 2007, at 9:54 AM, William Robb wrote: > We've been down this road before, it must have been before you > found us. The > MX uses some proprietary circuitry for the light meter, and this is > the > component that failed. Thanks, sounds like they didn't do a particularly good job of designing/manufacturing that part. >> Nikon FTn Photomic heads for the F and F2 often have problems with a >> similar component. There's a guy who rebuilds them and recalibrates >> them for currently available batteries for about $70 a head. > > The F2 uses S/76 or Dl1/3N lithiums. I think the DP-2 head has better > components than the older F Photomic heads. They seem to be pretty > bomb > proof. Hmm. I could swear my F and F2 both used PX-13 batteries, but then it's been way too long since I sold the F2... > Unfortunately, the use of cheap components isn't likely to change > in an > arena where the consumer will make a decision about purchase based on > $$/specification rather than quality of product, and the > manufacturer fully > expects that the product will be considered obsolete within less > than a > decade. Yup. There's no point to spending money on long term durability when the people you're selling to don't need or appreciate it. The better products being made today will last long enough to satisfy most people's needs. G -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
On May 22, 2007, at 9:35 AM, Tom C wrote: >> What all these problems really indicate is how cheap, low-spec most >> of the electronic components being used are, even in high-end >> cameras. Curiously, my 1966 RCA transistor radio that cost me $20 >> (expensive back then!) is still going strong. > > Likely planned obsolescence? I doubt it. I would attribute it to cost control, trying to maintain a marketable, profitable product at a reasonable price. The tradeoff is between cost of manufacture and warranty costs, not longevity/ durability, since only a few people buying these kinds of products use them for more than a few years at a stretch before updating to newer equipment. G -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
I could be mistaken, but I thought it was Pentax that originally approached Hoya regarding a merger. Tom C. >From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >Subject: Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but... >Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 13:53:24 -0400 > >It's seldom that the results of such a merger are better than building >the business you already have. Most such mergers result in >disappointment. (That doesn't stop them from happening however). A >classic example was Sperry and Burroughs merging in 1986 to take >advantage of their "Synergy", the final market share resulting from the >merger was less that either one had before the merger. Most seem to work >out that way. The spectacular successes, (which they are few and far >between), are what keep M&A groups going, but don't ask them about their >success ratio. > >Tom C wrote: > >> From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > >> Remember the plan to continue to make cameras was assumed by Pentax. > >> Hoya's plans were unknown but hinted at by their CFO, which seems to > >> have precipitated the unpleasantness. By the way if Hoya is so strong > >> and Pentax's prospects are so bleek, why didn't Hoya just say, then >have > >> it your way, and walk away? > >> > >> > > > > Because they are interested in increasing the sales and profits of their > > medical division. > > > > Tom C. > > > > > > > > > > >-- >All dogs have four legs; my cat has four legs. Therefore, my cat is a dog. > > >-- >PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >PDML@pdml.net >http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
It's still accountable to it's shareholders and if the majority of them don't want to go that route it's hard to buck them off your back. The whole thing is a fiasco. It was Pentax's former President (who is credited, justly or unjustly, with bringing the camera division back to profitability) that saw the benefits of a merger. It was their new management that backed out, then threw tantrums, blew smoke with profit and volume proclamations that the industry viewed as unattainable, and now has slinked back to the table. According to Japanese reports it was an internal management feud that brought this about. http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/editorial/20070522TDY04005.htm Tom C. >From: Gonz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" >Subject: Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but... >Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 12:52:37 -0500 > >I dont know why Pentax does not just take a poison pill if it does not >want to be acquired by Hoya. I.e. take on alot of debt and buy back >tons of its stock. Isnt that what american companies do with some >hostile takeovers? Maybe its not an option in Japan? > >rg > > >On 5/21/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In a message dated 5/21/2007 11:57:51 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > Personally I don't think Pentax is going down the drain in the >immediate > > future (6 months - 1 year). On the other hand, I have no idea how long >of a > > future they have. Hoya may take the camera division under their wing, >and > > then if they're not successful enough, spin them off or sell them. >There's > > an infinite number of scenarios that could occur. > > > > Tom C. > > > > > > Yes, while I hate to agree with you, I do. :-) At least re infinite > > scenarios. > > > > I think Pentaxes DSLRs have been too successful recently for I think >Hoya > > just to trash them. Also the recent news is that Pentax is going for a > > subsidiary deal with independent management. But that doesn't mean that >down the > > road, if the cameras start losing money, that Hoya won't cut them out >then. > > > > OTOH, maybe Hoya will pour some serious money into Pentax R&D and >marketing > > and beef them up. With earlier lens releases (or on time lens releases) >and > > some new DSLRs, well... with enough money invested Pentax could >actually > > become a player. > > > > But it's still too hard to predict anything right now. The deal is not >even > > finalized. > > > > I just hope that Hoya is smart enough to realize the second scenario I >gave > > above is as likely as the first. > > > > Marnie aka Doe > > > > > > > > > > ** See what's free at >http://www.aol.com. > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > PDML@pdml.net > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > >-- >PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >PDML@pdml.net >http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 02:03:32PM -0400, Norm Baugher wrote.. > Are you suggesting that the mergers like Time/AOL, HP/Compaq, > Daimler/Chrysler, etc. were not smashing successes? Daimler-Chrysler definitely was not a smashing success.. >From my own experience I can tell that mergers are a mixed blessing (politely speaking) for the employees. Wilko > P. J. Alling wrote: > > It's seldom that the results of such a merger are better than building > > the business you already have. Most such mergers result in > > disappointment. (That doesn't stop them from happening however). A > > classic example was Sperry and Burroughs merging in 1986 to take > > advantage of their "Synergy", the final market share resulting from the > > merger was less that either one had before the merger. Most seem to work > > out that way. The spectacular successes, (which they are few and far > > between), are what keep M&A groups going, but don't ask them about their > > success ratio. > > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net --- end of quoted text --- -- Wilko -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
In a message dated 5/22/2007 11:04:57 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I dont know why Pentax does not just take a poison pill if it does not want to be acquired by Hoya. I.e. take on alot of debt and buy back tons of its stock. Isnt that what american companies do with some hostile takeovers? Maybe its not an option in Japan? rg = Sparx. Come on, Pentax really doesn't want their stock to plummet. News stories have been saying that Japanese investment groups/companies (whatever they are called) are becoming rather aggressive now in determing the course of the company they are invested in. Not just with Pentax. Kamakasi Pentax? Hara-Kiri Pentax? I'd prefer... Samurai Pentax. Huyah! Whomp! Take that (fill in the blank)!!! Marnie aka Doe ;-) - Warning: I am now filtering my email, so you may be censored. ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
It's seldom that the results of such a merger are better than building the business you already have. Most such mergers result in disappointment. (That doesn't stop them from happening however). A classic example was Sperry and Burroughs merging in 1986 to take advantage of their "Synergy", the final market share resulting from the merger was less that either one had before the merger. Most seem to work out that way. The spectacular successes, (which they are few and far between), are what keep M&A groups going, but don't ask them about their success ratio. Tom C wrote: >> From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> Remember the plan to continue to make cameras was assumed by Pentax. >> Hoya's plans were unknown but hinted at by their CFO, which seems to >> have precipitated the unpleasantness. By the way if Hoya is so strong >> and Pentax's prospects are so bleek, why didn't Hoya just say, then have >> it your way, and walk away? >> >> > > Because they are interested in increasing the sales and profits of their > medical division. > > Tom C. > > > > -- All dogs have four legs; my cat has four legs. Therefore, my cat is a dog. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
Are you suggesting that the mergers like Time/AOL, HP/Compaq, Daimler/Chrysler, etc. were not smashing successes? Norm P. J. Alling wrote: > It's seldom that the results of such a merger are better than building > the business you already have. Most such mergers result in > disappointment. (That doesn't stop them from happening however). A > classic example was Sperry and Burroughs merging in 1986 to take > advantage of their "Synergy", the final market share resulting from the > merger was less that either one had before the merger. Most seem to work > out that way. The spectacular successes, (which they are few and far > between), are what keep M&A groups going, but don't ask them about their > success ratio. > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Don't want to sound too alarmist but...
I dont know why Pentax does not just take a poison pill if it does not want to be acquired by Hoya. I.e. take on alot of debt and buy back tons of its stock. Isnt that what american companies do with some hostile takeovers? Maybe its not an option in Japan? rg On 5/21/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In a message dated 5/21/2007 11:57:51 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Personally I don't think Pentax is going down the drain in the immediate > future (6 months - 1 year). On the other hand, I have no idea how long of a > future they have. Hoya may take the camera division under their wing, and > then if they're not successful enough, spin them off or sell them. There's > an infinite number of scenarios that could occur. > > Tom C. > > > Yes, while I hate to agree with you, I do. :-) At least re infinite > scenarios. > > I think Pentaxes DSLRs have been too successful recently for I think Hoya > just to trash them. Also the recent news is that Pentax is going for a > subsidiary deal with independent management. But that doesn't mean that down > the > road, if the cameras start losing money, that Hoya won't cut them out then. > > OTOH, maybe Hoya will pour some serious money into Pentax R&D and marketing > and beef them up. With earlier lens releases (or on time lens releases) and > some new DSLRs, well... with enough money invested Pentax could actually > become a player. > > But it's still too hard to predict anything right now. The deal is not even > finalized. > > I just hope that Hoya is smart enough to realize the second scenario I gave > above is as likely as the first. > > Marnie aka Doe > > > > > ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
