Talk:Pentax

message: I've added some new material to that which was here before (mostly up to the introduction of the K mount).  I'll improve wording etc. over the next few days.  If anybody has any expertise as to Takumar lenses then this would be good to have, they deserve a more detailed treatment than I can give them.  -- Donald 03:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a Takumar page already that I have linked to. Thanks for the new material. You might want to consider moving some of it to the Asahi Pentax page and just leaving a summary under Pentax </br>--Icd 23:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the long run it will probably be best to place most of the material onto seperate pages and link to it from Pentax, with just a brief summary under the various headings, but I think that it would be best to hold off on this until there is more there.  BTW if anyone can come up with a better heading for the pre-Spotmatic section then feel free to get rid of mine, I had a bit of a mental block - I don't think that I've ever seen them refered to as the Asahi-Pentax series before.</br>Xdamr 04:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Takumar 

message: As long as there are cameras on the shelves with K-M's logo on them, K-M continues to be a competitor to Pentax and all other camera companies. Unless we have some high-level Sony execs contributing to wikipedia, any removal of K-M is at best, premature, and at worst, flat out wrong. Icd 02:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: SONY has now released their Alpha DSLR system based on K-M tech and has back compatability with older lenses so I agree with keeping K-M or perhaps merge it with Sony. One must remember that it is only the cmaera and optics division that has been bought by SONY and K-M are still making their other productlines. </br>—Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.31.160.205 (talk) 22:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Konica Minolta 

message: I feel that the statement "The thing that really set Pentax D and DS DSLRs apart from the competition was the clarity and high magnification provided by their pentaprism viewfinders, a very useful feature considering the support for legacy manual focus lenses" strongly needs a citation. While certainly an important statement, the tone and language runs dangerously close to opinion. Jo7hs2 (talk) 01:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: *istD/DS Viewfinder

message: The final section should be updated. Questions that may prove useful to the interested reader include: where is Hoya-Pentax going as far as a merged organization? What terrain is Pentax staking out vis-a-vis the other SLR makers? What are their sales targets? Percentage of the market up or down? What does the Samsung roadmap indicate for Pentax SLRs? What is the shape of the Pentax medical division in relation to the medical divisions of other optics corporations? </br> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.186.198 (talk) 22:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Corporate 2008 and beyond

message: I've split the article into two. One (Pentax) covers the Pentax corporation (and its predecessors and successors) which is now defunct, and the history of the corporation. The other (Pentax cameras) covers its products, the Pentax camera models, from the early Asahiflex and Asahi Pentax in the 1950's, to date. This should help both parts of this topic area.
FT2 (Talk | email) 16:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article split 

message: Move for strike.  It's like calling Crysler a competitor to Ferrari. Yes, they're in the same business, but the distance between them is close to infinite.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.176.64 (talk) 22:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats a very bad taste to spit onto a very great brand what Pentax is. That really puts me off all the other Pentax rival camera manufacturers.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.168.32 (talk) 18:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pentax a competitor to Leica 

message: English announcement --KymFarnik (talk) 08:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ricoh to buy Pentax 

message: The article claims The name "Pentax" was originally a registered trademark of the East German VEB Zeiss Ikon (from "Pentaprism" and "Contax") but, as all Germans patents were annulled with the country's defeat
This obviuously is complete nonsense. 
# The VEB Carl Zeiss Jena and VEB Zeiss Ikon did not exist prior to 1948
# Much of the leading work force of Carl Zeiss Jena went to Heidenheim in West Germany when the US troops left Jena. They later founded a new Zeiss factory in Oberkochen and Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung (foundation). The Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung in Heidenheim West Germany later was accepted as the only legal successor to the original Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung, the owner of the Zeiss and Schott companies. Thus the name rights were not lost but transferred to West Germany.
The name Pentax may in fact have been modeled after the name Contax, a name under which Zeiss sold cameras.--BerlinSight (talk) 05:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There are some versions of the prototype Zeiss-Pentax in the :de:Technische Sammlungen Dresden. There are pictures available of them both at Commons and Flickr, with additional data most likely cited from the information plaques at that museum. They both date the camera 1954 and say it's from Zeiss-Ikon, so I suppose that part is correct. Further information is hard to find. There is a blog post claiming that the brand was created 1952 and sold to Asahi in 1957. There's more stuff like that out there, but I didn't find anything that would make a solid reference … --El Grafo (talk) 10:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: de:Pentax basically tells the same story: Pentax was derived from Contax and Pentaprism and owned by VEB Zeiss Ikon, sold to Asahi in 1957. They reference the an article entitled "90 years of Pentax" on the website of :de:Fotomagazin, a German photography magazine, but the link only gives "access denied" and no previous versions of the page are available on archive.org. Anyway, I guess in combination this should be enough to remove the patent section. --El Grafo (talk) 10:56, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable reference to East German VEB Zeiss 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Pentax. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120421111829/http://www.seiko-opt.co.jp/en/lens/pentax-tlens/ to http://www.seiko-opt.co.jp/en/lens/pentax-tlens/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111018083415/http://www.bone.pentax.jp/index_e.php to http://www.bone.pentax.jp/index_e.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120421111829/http://www.seiko-opt.co.jp/en/lens/pentax-tlens/ to http://www.seiko-opt.co.jp/en/lens/pentax-tlens/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:14, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article mentions Seiko four times, but Seiko mentions Pentax zero times. It is hard to understand what artifacts of Pentax are a part of Seiko. Should something additional be included in the fate section here.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:01, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seiko