[Paul the Sunman]

When the K1 was belatedly released, along with some wonderful long lenses (150-450 and 70-200), many of us expected a modern full frame AF teleconverter to follow quickly. It would add value to the system and reduce the need for an even longer lens. How difficult could it be?

All these years later, there is nothing. Having closely followed Pentax's lens developments, it seems they are not content to release anything that is not exceptional. Many PF members who have used the DA 1.4x TC find that, despite being well-regarded, it is still not quite as good as just cropping without TC. If that is also the case for a potential FF TC, might Ricoh/Pentax have decided that they cannot achieve the required IQ and therefore shelved it? Canon, Nikon, Sigma, Kenko etc seem to have no such qualms.

---

Last edited by Paul the Sunman; 08-06-2021 at 08:34 PM.

[Spock]

For TCs to be worthwhile they need to be matched to specific (fast, high end) lenses. You can't just put one on a kit lens and expect better results than just cropping would achieve.

[Not a Number]

Ricoh probably has bigger fish to fry than an updated TC at this point.

[tduell]

...Many PF members who have used the DA 1.4x TC find that, despite being well-regarded, it is still not quite as good as just cropping without TC.

I haven't found cropping to be better than using the TC.
I seem to recall some time back Wpresto posted results of some extensive testing he carried out with the DFA 150-450 with and without the 1.4x TC and I think his conclusions were that the TC provided better results than cropping.
I haven't tracked down the post, so hope that my recollections are correct.

Cheers,
Terry

[kypfer]

In my experience, a teleconverter is of more use on an older camera with a "limited" number of pixels, simply because there's less opportunity for cropping or "digital zoom" from a 16m-pixel (or less) camera than there is from a 24m-pixel camera … I'm talking APS-C sensors here, you'll need to approximately double those numbers for a full-frame camera.
Obviously the lens in use needs to be of top quality. If any aberrations are visible in normal use, a teleconverter will only magnify them, and, of course, there's always the opportunity for a less-than-perfect t/c to introduce problems of it's own, including possible necessity for a different fine-tuning of the a/f
I regularly carry a 1.5x Kenko t/c, use it where necessary and often, but not always, achieve acceptable results with it. On many occasions external factors, such as heat haze, limit the range at which a photograph can be taken. Also bear in mind that unless you're starting with a fast lens, ideally f/4 or better, you'll be working at or beyond the reliable limits of the a/f system, so there can be a certain amount of unavoidable hit-or-miss in the results, even if the camera reports a "Green Hexagon".

[BigMackCam]

For TCs to be worthwhile they need to be matched to specific (fast, high end) lenses. You can't just put one on a kit lens and expect better results than just cropping would achieve.

Whilst I agree that matched TC-plus-lens combos will give the best performance, the APS-C format HD DA 1.4x - which isn't matched to any specific lens (so far as I'm aware) - works extremely well with various models. I've used it quite frequently with the DA*60-250 on my K-3, and the image quality is very good indeed, with little degradation considering the extra reach. I'm convinced Ricoh could develop a FF TC with optical performance at least equivalent to the HD DA 1.4x...

[biz-engineer]

Is the absence of a modern FF TC an admission that quality suffers?

No. It indicates that customers are technically better off using a K3III with DFA150-450 , than using a K1 + TC + DFA 150-450.

I've used both (K3 and K1+TC).

The K3 combo was clear winner:
- better AF points coverage
- faster frame rate
- less vignetting
- smaller file sizes
- faster shutter speeds (or lower ISO)
- better resolution as using K1+TC.

[5ks]

Whilst I agree that matched TC-plus-lens combos will give the best performance, the APS-C format HD DA 1.4x - which isn't matched to any specific lens (so far as I'm aware) - works extremely well with various models. I've used it quite frequently with the DA*60-250 on my K-3, and the image quality is very good indeed, with little degradation considering the extra reach. I'm convinced Ricoh could develop a FF TC with optical performance at least equivalent to the HD DA 1.4x...

I've been using the same combo, K-3 + DA*60-250 and HD DA 1.4x converter, lately quite a lot, and been happily surprised to see the relatively good image quality. I did not expect (and not quite get) exactly the same quality as w/o the converter, but it's close enough for my needs and making the extra reach in focal length well worthy. Definitely better than just cropping. It only needs 1/3 stop (5,6 > 6,3 with the 1.4x) to achieve very sharp images, and even wide open it's quite okay.

Will be happy to use a FF-capable converter with DFA 150 - 450 + K-1 sometimes in the future...

... but isn't APS-C still better form factor for long lenses, giving more reach? And K-3(Mk3) already giving enough pixels for most purposes?

[biz-engineer]

Now, I can imagine, K3 III with its 101 AF points and 12 FPS + DFA150-450 @ f5.6 to be a much better solution than K1 (33 AF points in center , 4FPS) + TC + 150-450 @ f/8.

[Wasp]

Ricoh probably has bigger fish to fry than an updated TC at this point.

I agree.

Other manufacturers still make teleconverters, so they are not going away. A new and improved Pentax might happen in the future.

Right now there is a vast gap in the lineup between the K70 and the K3 III that needs to be filled. Hopefully someone is looking into that.

[Paul the Sunman]

Right now there is a vast gap in the lineup between the K70 and the K3 III that needs to be filled. Hopefully someone is looking into that.

That was the KP. The Australian Pentax agents explicitly told me that the KP was discontinued to create the large gap. They didn't want a "confusing" line-up with models too close to each other. I can't see it being filled again anytime soon.

[dbs]

That was the KP. The Australian Pentax agents explicitly told me that the KP was discontinued to create the large gap. They didn't want a "confusing" line-up with models too close to each other. I can't see it being filled again anytime soon.

Hi Paul

The only problem with dropping the KP was they increased the price of the K - 70 to KP level.

[AfterPentax Mark II]

That was the KP. The Australian Pentax agents explicitly told me that the KP was discontinued to create the large gap. They didn't want a "confusing" line-up with models too close to each other. I can't see it being filled again anytime soon.

I think the KP was replaced by the K-3 Mark III to fill the gap between the K-70 and the K-1.

[Spock]

I think the KP was replaced by the K-3 Mark III to fill the gap between the K-70 and the K-1.

But the K3-III is more expensive than the K1!

[RobA_Oz]

But the K3-III is more expensive than the K1!

If you mean the K-1ii, given that the K-1 has been discontinued for quite some time, this is from the Pentax Australia website, just now: