Originally posted by Uluru Any company can do a better job in PR, and that's why Pentax has gotten an all new PR partner, as announced few days before Photokina.
You make a lot of good points but if you were completely right, why did Pentax then use the amateurish Colorado video? If you are not ready to advertise your product you postpone the release of PR material instead of embarrasing yourself.
Originally posted by blende8 The word is: No full-frame, no full-frame, no full-frame.
...
"Just use higher ISO."
That's how they think, no joke.
I believe that this is what you heard from the Pentax people over there. But don't we all know very well that these people have little clue what the actual decision makers in Japan are thinking/doing?
I don't understand why everyone here jumps at these negative news as if they had been signed with the blood of the Japanese engineers. I'm sure there is more to the story then we got through this very short telegram style report.
Regarding the FA Ltds.: Not sure that rumour is even true but if it is it may just mean that these old designs will be replaced with WR versions. Also, perhaps Ned Bunnell had a point when he said these film-FF designs may not fulfill expectations on FF digital. Many treat the "no more FA Ltds" rumour as prove of Pentax pulling out of FF. But remember what they did to the 100mm Macro? They could have produced an APS-C version of it and sell it at the same price, right? But they didn't.
We've got some unconfirmed facts from Pentax people at Photokina but that doesn't mean we have heard the full story from Japan.
Ha, ha, one could have guessed that's what the direction of knowledge flow is.
Originally posted by falconeye We agreed that the speed of the SDM motor has remained the same.
To be expected.
Originally posted by falconeye But he was also around when I said that I do see a K-5 advantage for very short focus wheel turning differences where focus turn time doesn't matter this much.
That's what I thought when I read Wieland's statement. He seems to think of AF speed to mean "time to get from end to end" whereas in practice it is much more important how quickly the camera finds the point of accurate focus when it is already close to having a good lock.
No offence, Wieland, but I don't think your statement about AF not being quicker for SDM lenses is true in practice. The most relevant part of AF speed is determined by the camera, not the lens, which is why we can expect to see AF speed improvements even with SDM lenses where the "end to end" speed is fixed by the power of the lens motor.