«

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

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

from another source:

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

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

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

Well, many of us sensed that it was coming.

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

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

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

They cheapened their lenses once they introduced the "A" series. THis was
particularly disconcerting because the optical performance of the "A" lenses
was superior to that of the screwmounts and the original K-mounts, while the
mechanical build quality had deteriorated noticably. Just like new cars.
Better fuel economy and more amenities, at the expense of less sheet metal
and smaller overall size.

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

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

In article <>, acl
<> wrote:

> jeremy wrote:
> > mechanical build quality had deteriorated noticably. Just like new cars.
> > Better fuel economy and more amenities, at the expense of less sheet metal
> > and smaller overall size.
>
> So, basically, you prefer cars with lots of sheet metal and large size?


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

Ever seen a serious wreck? Ever been in one?

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

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

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

Ken Lucke wrote:
> In article <>, acl
> <> wrote:
>
> > jeremy wrote:
> > > mechanical build quality had deteriorated noticably. Just like new cars.
> > > Better fuel economy and more amenities, at the expense of less sheet metal
> > > and smaller overall size.
> >
> > So, basically, you prefer cars with lots of sheet metal and large size?
>
>
> Damn straight _I_ do. Sheet metal, true internal structure (not just
> some flimsy suppoorts for the outer skin), and large size. I'd take
> high strength composite fiber/plastics (NOT fiberglass!) if they ever
> start making cars with them (oops, sorry, that was an inadvertent cue
> for RichA to enter the thread with his obsession), but until then, I
> want METAL around me. The more the better.
>
> Ever seen a serious wreck? Ever been in one?
>
> From 1979 to 1996, I worked as a professional, full time paramedic (in
> Portland, OR and other places), and the last 6 years was also a
> firefighter. I've _seen_ (and sometimes had to scrape up) the
> difference in outcomes.
>
> Sorry, but to hell with fuel economy... with the millions of people on
> the road in this country who merely know "how to operate a motor
> vehicle" as opposed to actually knowing how to _drive_ their vehicles
> (and there is a HUGE difference between those two skillsets), I want a
> tank around me, if possible. Again, damn straight I prefer a vehicle
> with some substance to it rather than today's tin cans that a wrinkle
> in the sheet metal causes major loss of body integrity and strength
> (literally).
>
> --
> You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
> reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
> the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
> independence.
> -- Charles A. Beard

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

Ken Lucke wrote:
> In article <>, acl
> <> wrote:
>
> > jeremy wrote:
> > > mechanical build quality had deteriorated noticably. Just like new cars.
> > > Better fuel economy and more amenities, at the expense of less sheet metal
> > > and smaller overall size.
> >
> > So, basically, you prefer cars with lots of sheet metal and large size?
>
>
> Damn straight _I_ do. Sheet metal, true internal structure (not just
> some flimsy suppoorts for the outer skin), and large size. I'd take
> high strength composite fiber/plastics (NOT fiberglass!) if they ever
> start making cars with them (oops, sorry, that was an inadvertent cue
> for RichA to enter the thread with his obsession), but until then, I
> want METAL around me. The more the better.
>
> Ever seen a serious wreck? Ever been in one?

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


> From 1979 to 1996, I worked as a professional, full time paramedic (in
> Portland, OR and other places), and the last 6 years was also a
> firefighter. I've _seen_ (and sometimes had to scrape up) the
> difference in outcomes.
>
> Sorry, but to hell with fuel economy... with the millions of people on
> the road in this country who merely know "how to operate a motor
> vehicle" as opposed to actually knowing how to _drive_ their vehicles
> (and there is a HUGE difference between those two skillsets), I want a
> tank around me, if possible. Again, damn straight I prefer a vehicle
> with some substance to it rather than today's tin cans that a wrinkle
> in the sheet metal causes major loss of body integrity and strength
> (literally).
>

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

jeremy wrote:
> Well, many of us sensed that it was coming.
>
> Pentax had been a longtime user of Hoya optical glass, but to see Hoya
> swallow Pentax us is disconcerting.
>
> These mergers nearly always result in big changes, and I would not be
> surprised if the "Pentax" name disappears entirely over the next few years.
>

Actually, the "Pentax" name is one of the more valuable things Hoya's
getting from the deal. I expect they'll be keeping it at least in the
photography business.

The driving factor behind the merger appears to be Pentax and Hoya
combining their efforts in the medical imaging field.

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

OTOH, my own experience indicates a smaller, more nimble vehicle allows
the driver avoid accidents he might not be able to avoid in a larger,
heavier, less maneuverable automobile.

jeremy wrote:
> Well, many of us sensed that it was coming.
>
> Pentax had been a longtime user of Hoya optical glass, but to see Hoya
> swallow Pentax us is disconcerting.
>

They had already swallowed a big chunk of Pentax, as their subsidiary
brand Tokina makes most of the popular lenses (not the special stuff)

David