[D1N0]

I rather like the rendering of the FA limiteds. I hope the new coatings won't screw it up by putting in too much micro-contrast.

[calculator01]

Of course they would change them, after I acquired them all

[D1N0]

Of course they would change them, after I acquired them all

Change isn't always better look at the DA 15mm. Hang on to them. Value might actually increase.

[kenyee]

No so. Such lenses are already available in the form of the Nikon G series. The FA Limiteds don't have to increase much more in price before they start getting quite close to the price of Nikon's newly designed, top-of-the-line professional prime lenses which come with all the trimmings Winder mentions except for SR, I imagine. I'd wager that Canon have a pretty similar line-up

Nikon is actually doing a lot more 1.8 primes. They've been on a roll lately w/ the sharpness of their new primes except for the 55/1.8. Canon has focused mostly on fast primes.
But the Nikon G series is really sharp across the edges as well...even on FF. I don't think the Ltds are competing there...they're competing on size and feel (Leica'ish?).
A coating w/ less CA would be a welcome improvement, though I really do wish they'll include WR via some thin washers...

[krebsy75]

A coating w/ less CA

I don't believe coatings affect CA. It's my understanding that FA Limiteds' exhibit CA on digital because they were designed to focus on film.

[woodywesty]

There was no synthetic brushes in Van Gogh's time.

Oh thank you... I was getting ready to say the same thing... Even so... profound talent will find a way to make a tool work. I recently discovered a "Pentaxian" on our forum by the name of Keitha McCall who is in my opinion one of the most talented artist/photographers I've seen in my 66 years. Individuals like Keitha could make magic with a Kodak instamatic. I'm sure she doesn't fret about whether her DA 12-24 is a little fuzzy on the edges or distorts a bit, she just makes beautiful pictures with it along with all her other Pentax lenses. After viewing many of her pictures and seeing the lenses she is using I know without any doubt that any of Pentax's better lenses are way better than I can ever be so its now much easier to pick a lens. New coatings, old coatings who cares.... her lenses are old coatings. They're good enough for me...

[DavidSKAF3]

I think there was a scene in the movie "Ray" about Ray Charles where he comes across an old piano in somebody's house. The owner tells him the piano is all worn out. Out of tune. Some of the keys don't even work.


Of course he rocked that thing, despite the defects...

[Aristophanes]

I am pretty sure that all photons in the universe will be made aware of the superiority of the new FA Limiteds and adjust accordingly.

[fuent104]

I think the new direction will be revealed to each of us gradually, individually, over time. It will be a realization that Pentax is and intends to be different - an alternative. It will be demonstrated in a recognizable image character - the color profile, something done with SR technology, programming for the lenses - something unique and patentable.

What you are talking about is essentially the abandonment of much of the current base of users. I don't know why you think we should be of good cheer about that. To be honest, and I'm sorry if this offends you, because that is not my goal, but your optimism is virtually impossible to distinguish from propaganda. Somehow you seem to be able to turn almost anything that makes a current Pentax purchaser and user unhappy into some kind of "plan" on the part of Ricoh, which is somehow justified and legitimate.

Assuming that Ricoh moves in the direction you are mentioning, I'm going to point out what I see as the other side of that coin.

For years, people have been buying Pentax products, according to their needs / wants / ability to purchase. As time passes, for people such as myself, grow as photographers, and our needs / wants / ability to purchase changes. As such, lenses that satisfied my needs a few years ago no longer work for what I'd like to be able to do. For example, I used to have no need for autofocus lenses, and now I do. Specifically, I'd like to get a telephoto autofocus lens for portrait purposes, in the range of 85mm to 100mm.

What should I purchase? Pentax simply doesn't offer an 85mm, and the 100mm is f2.8 and expensive.

Canon offers an 85mm f1.8 and a 100 f2, both of which can be purchased for under $400, and both of which would satisfy my very legitimate needs. Should I switch systems? I don't want to do that, but that is becoming an increasingly attractive option. It's a huge, expensive pain, though.

How about the people who bought extremely expensive FA* lenses, like the 80-200 or the 85mm f1.4. Should they just stop wanting a camera body that can utilize those lenses to the best of their capabilities, i.e. the full image circle?

If fact, I think what you have described is a move away from providing products for people who place value on having a fully-featured, versatile system that provides the best in image quality. Pentax is flogging the "small" feature and the "build quality" feature as though they are the most important. Build quality doesn't have much affect on most images. Aperture and sensor size do. The fact that the most recent "premium" Pentax offering is an expensive, slow zoom says a lot. But hey, it's small and it has good build quality. Good luck making images of moving objects in low light. Oh wait, it's not within the Pentax ethos to provide products for people who want to make images of moving objects (such as people) in low light (such as interior lighting).

This path you have described, in my estimation, does not sound like anything that should cause anyone to be of good cheer.

That will be the end of my rant.

[Uluru]

What you are talking about is essentially the abandonment of much of the current base of users..

"If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses."
— Henry Ford

[fuent104]

"If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses."
— Henry Ford

That is irrelevant. Camera systems are assumed to be long-term investments.

[monochrome]

This path you have described, in my estimation, does not sound like anything that should cause anyone to be of good cheer.

FWIW, I'm nobody. I don't work for Pentax. I talked to jim Malcolm once, I read a lot and I sort of understand how capital works. We can want things to stay the same - we can want companies to keep their implied promises, but sometimes they don't or they can't. Sometimes we think we're more important than we are. Either the company knows more than we think about that or they're making a horrible mistake. Pentax made horrible mistakes. Pentax was a totally benighted company. SMC patent revenue papered over years and years of errors. Until it didn't any more.

I actually don't disagree with anything you wrote. I have considered changing to Nikon.

Change has disrupted every company in every industry in the world. My father's company no longer exists. What my grandfather invented is no longer used by anyone. Anywhere. Too bad. So sad. Sux to be me. My father's campany was totally benighted. He didn't see it coming. it collapsed in just 5 years. I sold early. My brother makes more money than my father ever dreamed of, parking cars on a city block that once was a factory.

Two camera companies who between them control approximately 70% of the market make lenses that perform as you need at prices you can afford. I don't think - and I don't really have detailed inside information about product plans - but I don't think Ricoh thinks it makes sense to compete on an "us, too" basis with two entrenched, dominant companies with established and defensible barriers to entry. I think Ricoh plans to do something else. We can lament the loss or look forward to the difference - it is a choice.

Ricoh did not allow Pentax's market position to fall to 3% - Pentax fumbled its position all by itself. Blame them. Blame Hoya. Don't blame Ricoh. Ricoh did not abandon you. Pentax and Hoya did. The "current base of users" left long ago.

Ricoh bought that market position. They bought Hoya's commitment to APSc and abandonment of FX. The company that made the 85/1.4, the FA* lenses, 200 Macro - that company doesn't exist. It went out of business in 2006. Those engineers are gone or working for other companies now. The plants are closed. The SMC patents - source of the cash flow to fund the development of those lenses - those patents have expired. SMC is over. There really isn't that old Pentax any more.

My reason to be cheerful is that there is and will remain apparently a Pentax AT ALL, that there is a plan AT ALL. The K3 actually feels and behaves like a Pentax camera. I suppose being cheerful about that is also a choice. They're not parking cars on Pentax factories, at least not in Cebu.

I also agree that my schtick has gotten tiresome. Rondec or Bdery or Clinton or someone who is actually credible can carry on better.

[Uluru]

That is irrelevant. Camera systems are assumed to be long-term investments.

Your investment, or company's own investment?
And I see no other company than Pentax and Leica that stick so firmly to their own legacies, and their mounts, as hard as they can and better than anybody else.
Therefore they were always my only choices in imaging needs — I considered no other company just on the basis of that virtue you underscore too.

So please tell me, what was your point exactly?

[Gray]

The "current base of users" left long ago.

No we didn't. We're still here, shooting away with our *istDs, K-10Ds, K-5s and K-3s and M42s, Taks, K, M, A, F, DA and FA lenses (and enjoying it immensely, thank you) .

I agree with fluent104 that build quality, WR and size cannot trump image quality. The FA Limiteds are the jewels in the K-mount crown, even with no WR and no DC AF, much more so than any DA 20-40 meh zoom. Ricoh's tinkering with the FA Limiteds better had make them even better, image-wise, in the hands of those who love photography, rather than a mere cosmetic refresh as justification for another insulting price increase.

[DavidSKAF3]

In the camera business is it customary when a new lens is introduced for example to put out a limited run to start with, to judge how they're being received?