[Kunzite]

So Pentax designed the optics, and Tokina the rest? I find that strangs as the optics are the similar parts in those lenses and the mechanicals are different. Am I missing something here?

What's wrong with the 16-50 DA*? It's sharp, wide, has nice colors and draws very beautiful diffraction stars (important to me, as the 50-135mm does as well).

Pentax designed the optics, and gave them to Tokina; then, they separately designed the mechanical and electronic part.
IMO the 16-50 is just not good enough for a * lens, and for its price; it's in an urgent need for a replacement.

[gazonk]

IMO the 16-50 is just not good enough for a * lens, and for its price; it's in an urgent need for a replacement.

And one of the few things we actually know, from the road map, is that there will be a new DA* normal zoom... but I still think the entry in the road map might as well be an FF zoom, because a 16-85 doesn't really sound like a good idea, so I think they've deliberately made it cover both the range of a new 16-50 (or maybe, just maybe, 16-70) and the range of a typical FF normal zoom (say DA* 24-75 f/2.8...) just to make us continue to suffer through all these FF threads ;-)

[illdefined]

Financial wise.
Reality check: their DSLR failed (yes, due to sensor size - I always thought that going 4/3 instead of APS-C was a mistake, and they tried to compensate through marketing) but Pentax did not. I'll reformulate this: Pentax did not, while going through one hostile takeover, drastic cost cutting and R&D downsizing, a global economic crisis, the Japan disaster, and then, being sold. Unlike Olympus 4/3 they managed to survive and keep some market share in such hostile conditions.

Financial wise, you know full well about the Olympus scandal. counter to the argument you failed to make, this had nothing to do with the superiority of the DSLR over MILCs, which were much less successful for them despite being great DSLRs. the runaway success of the OM-D is singlehandedly helping Olympus out of its financial mess (without selling the company).

4/3 was the smallest sensor for DSLRs at the time, and lost out to the then standard APS-C. the high-end DSLR sensor standard is quickly becoming FF, and now APS-C is the smallest DSLR sensor size with much smaller, advanced mirrorless cameras carrying identical sensors....the exact same scenario suffered by the late Olympus E-System.

If you keep refusing to hear the coming winds of the change, at least take a look at the whole past, not just the parts you prefer. history tends to repeat itself.

[Kunzite]

And that's precisely my point: can they get out of it, with only the medical and camera division's profits? I doubt about the OM-D singlehandedly doing it, since there are talks about Sony buying into them.
With the medical division (aren't they the market leader?) and a supposedly very profitable MILCs, why do they need Sony's help? My explanation is that MILCs aren't that profitable, and one should not jump head first into that market, without careful planning and thinking. Do you have a better one?

What history, do you think the m4/3 will also fail and Olympus will launch yet another mount?

[junyo]

I care about a camera company, in the sense in which I want them to continue to provide the equipment I want. But I'm afraid I don't see the relation with what I wrote... are you trying to ridicule my position this way?
The issue with the stinking adapter, my dear Watson, is that:
1. I will gain nothing by using it. I can only hope for the same level of compatibility, but even that's not granted.
2. I will have to pay for it. Why, since I will gain nothing?
3. I will have two different, incompatible lens lines. The old ones will work on the new body with the stinking adapter, but the new ones won't work at all on an old body - which makes keeping a it as a backup difficult.
But if you prefer to think I'm just emotional, and there's no reason to not throw away compatibility and embrace the stinking adapters...
P.S. So I was right, you already departed from the K-mount, and want everyone to do the same. Guess what...

Which again, displays an amazing degree of blindness.

1. You gain the chance at much smaller large sensor bodies. And much more importantly, you lower the cost of entry for Pentax offerings to users of other mounts, thus making it easier for other people buy Pentax products and increasing marketshare.
2. OMG! You might have to give the company you care so deeply about money for a product? The horror. The horror.
3. You already have that. M42 compatibility, via an adapter. The spec on the new lenses for the K01? K mount, but not really because they're set too deep in the body. And as I, and a couple of other people here have pointed out, maintaining compatibility is rather trivial in practice with a dumb adapter; with a OEM smart adapter it would be even simpler. So this is a really a non-point.

And I'm sorry that you don't comprehend very well. I'm buying and using K-mount lenses. I still own K-mount cameras. None of my equipment turned to dust when I bought a non-K mount MILC, and it integrated completely into my workflow. So yeah, your argument is completely emotional. You're the one that wants the company to service the tiny user base at the expense of competing in the bigger market. You're the one arguing that you would rather switch than give the company a dime for, or even consider the idea of, an adapter. You're the one holding your breathe and stomping your feet that the one thing of value in Pentaxland is the reverend K-mount. And that attitude is what's strangling Pentax.

[Kunzite]

Blindness? Careful, there, you're getting personal...
1. I'll remind you that L.C. was talking about changing the mount with an electronic one, not about going MILC - thus, no smaller bodies; this argument is irrelevant. It would also increase the cost, because the R&D must be sourced from somewhere, right?
2. I'm ready to pay a fair amount for products I want; but you're saying I should be happy to pay for an inconvenience? Oh, wait, you're trying to make me a "fanboy"; nice try, but... FAIL.
3. What on Earth are you talking about? I have no M42 lenses; only K-mount ones. And I already explained how an adapter cannot provide both backward and forward compatibility.

I see a lot of hate towards the poor K-mount and its user base. Emotional? Look in the mirror.
And by the way, Pentax is competing on the bigger market.

[illdefined]

And that's precisely my point: can they get out of it, with only the medical and camera division's profits? I doubt about the OM-D singlehandedly doing it, since there are talks about Sony buying into them.
With the medical division (aren't they the market leader?) and a supposedly very profitable MILCs, why do they need Sony's help? My explanation is that MILCs aren't that profitable, and one should not jump head first into that market, without careful planning and thinking. Do you have a better one?

Yes. Olympus is still recovering from a long term profit scandal potentially dealing with organized crime, not current lack of sales. Enough with the smoke bomb, the issue is DSLR vs. MILCs, are you really going to claim that a camera without a mirror, prisms and mechanical motor that must be calibrated is LESS profitable?

Besides, there's a big difference between being bought into and being bought outright. At least Olympus still has a profitable medical division, while Pentax's was stripped away wholesale during their (first) sale. Who really made it out in a better position?

What history, do you think the m4/3 will also fail and Olympus will launch yet another mount?

Huh? No, the smallest sensor MILC isn't micro4/3, that dubious honor goes to......the ("carefully planned and thought out") Pentax Q.

---

Last edited by illdefined; 09-25-2012 at 06:55 AM.

[raider]

That brings me back to my point: What does a brand new K30 owner, or more importantly, a potential K30 owner who visits this forum for the first time make of all this whining and complaining. This torrent of insults directed at Pentax would put me off if I was lurking here. You FF guys are definitely hurting Pentax, kicking them when they are down. I have done my share of serious complaining too I admit it! But enough is enough, I don't want to kill the goose that lays the golden egg just because It's not a Faberge.

I agree to this particular point. Recently I had a discussion with another photographer and he said he has visited Pentax forums from time to time and seem to find a lot of negativity towards Pentax in general, in addition to the usual rants regarding the lack of a FF....i was speechless when he said that.....so food for thoughts maybe?

[junyo]

Blindness? Careful, there, you're getting personal...
1. I'll remind you that L.C. was talking about changing the mount with an electronic one, not about going MILC - thus, no smaller bodies; this argument is irrelevant. It would also increase the cost, because the R&D must be sourced from somewhere, right?
2. I'm ready to pay a fair amount for products I want; but you're saying I should be happy to pay for an inconvenience? Oh, wait, you're trying to make me a "fanboy"; nice try, but... FAIL.
3. What on Earth are you talking about? I have no M42 lenses; only K-mount ones. And I already explained how an adapter cannot provide both backward and forward compatibility.

I see a lot of hate towards the poor K-mount and its user base. Emotional? Look in the mirror.
And by the way, Pentax is competing on the bigger market.

You're trying desperately to make this personal, but I haven't said anything personal about you, beyond using an adjective to describe your position. I never called you a fanboy. So you can stow the hate and invective.
1. The entire point of any additional mount/radically modified mount would be to enable new capabilities and designs, not change for the sake of change. The simple fact is that Pentax can't make certain cameras with K mount, which is why we now have the joke of a Q mount, and the bastard hybrid K01 lenses.
2. I'm saying you should at least be open to the idea of change that makes Pentax products more accessible/marketable.
3. Sigh. This is not about YOU, personally. You're not the only consumer in the universe. Pentax doesn't make bespoke cameras that service your (or my) particular needs. They have to aim for a wider audience. The point is, despite all the protestations that adding/switching mounts would be the end of the world, Pentax has changed mounts before, provided compatibility via adapter, and it didn't trigger the apocalypse. The point is Pentax is making non-compatible K mount lenses and Cthulhu didn't manifest himself.

And the fact is, you didn't explain anything, because your assertion is factually and logically incorrect. It wouldn't be that hard to make an adapter than both drove standard K mount lens (backwards compatibility) and would had more and wider data paths than the current lens spec calls for (forward compatibility). It's not even a new concept; other mounts have them. Which is why this conversation verges on the absurd. It's just a loop of you making an assertion, which is answered with logic or fact, which is responded to with another assertion and/or accusation of evil motive. Repeat.

If you want to dismiss anyone that disagrees with you as having nefarious motive, that's your prerogative. What you see is frustration, loads and loads of frustration, at users stuck in the past that are killing Pentax's future, by insisting that it essentially stay the course that got it to a shrinking, aging user base, and miniscule marketshare, and who's flagship product is their old flagship product warmed over. That's not my idea of being competitive.

However, since I'm certain that the mere fact that I've tried to have a reasonable discussion on this issue will be taken as a personal affront, and I will be accused of malfeasance; I here by apologize in advance for any hurt feelings, loss of self esteem, personal injury, or increase in global warming that this post may have caused.

[Winder]

I agree to this particular point. Recently I had a discussion with another photographer and he said he has visited Pentax forums from time to time and seem to find a lot of negativity towards Pentax in general, in addition to the usual rants regarding the lack of a FF....i was speechless when he said that.....so food for thoughts maybe?

I visit this forum, I still visit Olympus, Canon, & Sony. This one is not much different.

How do you think the Sony forums looked when Sony discontinued the A700 for over a year before announcing the replacement?
How do you think the Sony forums looked when Sony announced that SLT was the future and OVFs were dead?

Olympus took 5 years to replace the E-1 and 3 years to replace the E-3, and when they announced they were focusing on M4/3 as the future.... Total meltdown. What would happen if the K-5 did not get replaced for 5 years?

I wont eve start to list all screaming you get on the Canon forums. Then the 5DII & D700 came out Canon users bitched because they did not have Nikon AF, Nikon owners bitched because they did not have the Canon HD video and were stuck at 12MP.

[illdefined]

Except out of all those other brands, only Olympus' future was truly uncertain due to the scandal. But Sony, Canon, Nikon...they weren't going anywhere..

Pentax's situation is rather unique, bouncing around like a hot potato, changing owners twice in five years, not knowing where or how (or if) it will land.

[netrex]

I have a feeling that Pentax and Ricoh will be one.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

1. I'll remind you that L.C. was talking about changing the mount with an electronic one, not about going MILC

I guess you never read what I wrote:

But the most important advantage of having a fully electronic mount is the ability to move from long registration distance to shorter one while having a compatibility story because it's easy to make an adapter that doesn't need to do any mechanical conversion. This was accomplished, in order, by Olympus (FT to MFT), Sony (alpha to E), and Canon (EF to EF-M) so far. Nikon and Pentax won't be able to pull it off as nicely.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

What you see is frustration, loads and loads of frustration, at users stuck in the past that are killing Pentax's future

While there are users stuck in the past, I don't think they had any influence in Pentax remaining stuck in the past. By all accounts, Pentax never listened to customer feedback. Let's hope Ricoh thinks this situation through better. Maybe they're taking so long to announce a new product because it takes a bit to develop a new mount, a camera around it, and lenses to go with it. Trying to stay positive here.

[Zygonyx]

I have a feeling that Pentax and Ricoh will be one.

Agreed, and i dont think this is subjective : it is rather a survival MUST.