[TaoMaas]

If Pentax wants to capture a share of the pro market, why not make a weather-sealed, fast super-telephoto and price it below cost? Basically, build THE sports/wildlife 'must have' lens. Something for all those photographers who are likely to be out in bad weather and for whom extra reach means mo' money. If they could bring it in far enough under the Canon/Nikon equivalents, many of those pros may choose to pick up a K7 and dedicate it to the lens just for the weather resistance. It might be cheaper than designing an entire new camera line with lenses to go with it.

[bdery]

If Pentax wants to capture a share of the pro market, why not make a weather-sealed, fast super-telephoto and price it below cost? Basically, build THE sports/wildlife 'must have' lens. Something for all those photographers who are likely to be out in bad weather and for whom extra reach means mo' money. If they could bring it in far enough under the Canon/Nikon equivalents, many of those pros may choose to pick up a K7 and dedicate it to the lens just for the weather resistance. It might be cheaper than designing an entire new camera line with lenses to go with it.

You mean, like the 50-135, 60-250, 200, 300 lenses? Yeah, that would be cool.

[TaoMaas]

You mean, like the 50-135, 60-250, 200, 300 lenses? Yeah, that would be cool.

No...longer than that. Something in the 400-600 range.

[bdery]

I'm not an expert but I think you've been shooting digital too long.

Well, I'm sort of an expert, as optical design is my job... We probably just don't understand each other fully.

I'll repeat my statement differently :

if more light falls on one individual pixel, then you improve the signal to noise ratio of your measurement. In short, your high ISO performances will be better for the same level of technology.

To get more light on one pixel, you can either let more light through the lens, or make the pixel larger.

Making the pixel larger while preserving the resolution yields a larger sensor. Fair game.

Keeping the pixel size while increasing the sensor size will increase your pixel count (resolution) but will not improve the performance of individual pixel. The light intensity per surface element will be the same as before.

So increasing the sensor size does not, necessarily, improve the light gathering performances. The total amount of light hitting the sensor increases, true, but that does not necessarily relate to better noise figures.

And you have to take into account that a larger sensor also generates more heat, so all things being equal it will perform more poorly than a smaller sensor (I grant you that between APS-C and FF, the difference in heat will not be dramatic).

I hope my meaning is clearer.

[Blue]

No...longer than that. Something in the 400-600 range.

The FA* 600mm f4 was discontinued and was a special order item. They weren't exactly jumping of the shelves and the Same with the FA* 250-600/5.6. Being out of reach cost was part of it.

[tuco]

Well, I'm sort of an expert, as optical design is my job... We probably just don't understand each other fully.
...

Thanks for that clarification. But still, my K-7 does not capture but about 6 or 7 stops of light no matter what lens I put on. And maybe I can bring in a few more in post processing. A FF camera and a digital MF camera has the potential to capture much more. More like my BW film shots can do.

[TaoMaas]

The FA* 600mm f4 was discontinued and was a special order item. They weren't exactly jumping of the shelves and the Same with the FA* 250-600/5.6. Being out of reach cost was part of it.

Right. Pentax's long lenses have always been that way....they were too expensive and there were too few of them. It's a bit of a vicious circle. They can't get news/sports/wildlife photographers to use Pentax cameras because there's no lenses available at the right price....but they can't get the price down on the lenses unless they can get more pros to shoot Pentax and thereby increase demand...but that won't happen unless the lenses are available, etc...etc...etc...

[Pål Jensen]

Right. Pentax's long lenses have always been that way....they were too expensive and there were too few of them. It's a bit of a vicious circle. They can't get news/sports/wildlife photographers to use Pentax cameras because there's no lenses available at the right price....but they can't get the price down on the lenses unless they can get more pros to shoot Pentax and thereby increase demand...but that won't happen unless the lenses are available, etc...etc...etc...

There were plenty of Pentax super telephotos; particularly before AF but also until the mid -90's. They were also competitively priced.
Very few people are using lenses longer than 300mm. Besides, they are all hand-made and use expensive glass. Cheap long telephoto don't exist and won't....

[bkhl]

Well, cheap long telephoto do exist in the form of things like the Vivitar 800mm mirror lens.