[Fogel70]

Possibly so for GM-1, that has no sensor stabilisation. But still the same electronics than its brother GX-7, about two times bigger.

As far as A7 is concerned, i guess the "over-thikness" compared to K-5/K-3 is due to mobile/tilt rearsreen, and nothing else.

Some are convinced, and me too, that you actually should be able to insert FF sensor and SR in K-3 body let appart bigger bump for a bright and bigger pentaprism.
And with the 3 FA limiteds, updated or not, you still have a clear "compactness competitive advantage" over any other FF system.... for now and at least a few months, maybe a few years to come...

I don't think there is any technical reasons for the "oversize" on A7, it has more to to with the camera being designed for comfortable handling with FF lenses, and they need space to fit all controls. By how little space there are behind the sensor on Sony RX1, they could cut down the space on A7 to the same as on APS-C Nex, but that might just make the camera too small.

I'm not convinced Pentax can make a FF DSLR with SR in a K-3 sized body. They would need a new type of FF sensor in a smaller package (with much smaller frame), or maybe a complete redesign on SR using different technology. Or remove SR completely.
The APS-C version of the SR mechanism barely fit in a K-3, so making room for a twice as large sensor probably need a body that is 15-20mm higher. So they might end up with about the same size as on Nikon D610. Hopefully Pentax choose a better OVF than on D610, so the FF camera might end up a little larger than D610 because of a bigger prism bump.

[Zygonyx]

...
Maybe Ricoh have decided to run Pentax as a small and pricey boutique brand offering a select range of high-end classics for a certain kind of customer, perhaps mainly in Japan? it looks a bit like it. (Quite similar to the path taken by Ricoh's own camera brand which has a small but very loyal and keen following in Japan, apparently.) The new DA Limited 20-40mm makes a perfect fit for that approach. Tweaking the D-FA Limiteds would fit with that approach too, but redesigning them would not.

Strange world, very strange.

I understand new HD coating has some capability to improve overall optical performance, even if it doesn't solve all their flaws.
As a fact, there wouln't be much logic not to do with FA Ltd what has been done to the DA Ltd counterparts.
The worst thing would actually be to drop FA production.... which could very likely have happened earlier, given their probable low volumes and margin versus high selling costs !

As far as loyal customer follow-up is concerned, an interesting thing will be to see what they do of the relative success of GR, and the relative unsuccess of GXR...

[Kunzite]

Selling Pentax? Nonsense.
+ there is no Pentax to sell again; part of it was integrated into businesses like Factory Automation, the other is tightly integrated with Ricoh's own camera division - forming Ricoh Imaging.
+ it makes no sense to buy Pentax just to sell them again; what, they changed their minds just like that? In a mere 2 years?
+ Ricoh was the company which supported a minuscule, money-losing division for years - without selling it, without closing it. And now they would not support a growing, profitable Ricoh Imaging?

Ricoh Imaging has a lot of work to do, lens wise; to be effective, they must set priorities. There's also the question of what can be made to the FA Limiteds, without transforming them into full fledged DFA*s, and without increasing the price. Everything's easy when commenting from the sidelines... not so much when you're the one doing the job
They should definitely put QSF, WR and DC would be nice and revised optics pretty much required by the older designs (I think they can get away without it with the 31mm). But without knowing what's their target all bets are off.

A couple of years ago, some on here were lamenting Pentax's timidity, lack of new products, lack of investment and their search for little niches as the result of Hoya's mean and inept stewardship. Now the same voices are saying that lack of new products, lack of investment to do much more than maintain the status quo (there has clearly been more investment in the lenses but not that much more to judge from the results) and concentration on niches is a strategic masterstroke thanks to Ricoh.

I wonder if you can quote people making said claims...
And the premises are inaccurate too; there are new products, more in the pipeline and Ricoh is investing money. They're not moving as fast as we would like (without knowing the difficulties they must be facing), that's true; but they're definitely not contempt to maintain "the status quo".

[Gray]

So...

Option A: If Ricoh were to revamp the FA Limiteds to elminate purple fringing, red ring them and release them as HD D-FA WR Limiteds (with or without the aperture ring and mount mark, but screw drive like the D-FA 100/2.8 WR), that would be a clear signal of direction.

Option B: Merely to refresh them with HD coating and a red ring as HD FA Limited, with no aperture ring and lens mount mark, and charge 30% more, would also signal direction.

I wonder which we'll get. I'm hoping for A, but expect B.

[Uluru]

I understand new HD coating has some capability to improve overall optical performance, even if it doesn't solve all their flaws....

Those 'flaws' make them so desirable.
A 'perfect' lens by itself is a boring and predictable one.

[Winder]

The major point is to implement HD coating, which will improve manufacturing process of the glass. This will lead to better quality control, and lower reject rate on produced glass. And in the long run it will make the glass cheaper to produce.

The redesign of the lenses is just a way of promoting this, and a possibility to make more profit.

Do you have something to support the idea that switching coatings will improve quality control? How does that work?

[monochrome]

Do you have something to support the idea that switching coatings will improve quality control? How does that work?

The coatings are the end product. Fogel70 is referring to the new evaporators and vacuum chambers that lay the coating on the glass and the (patented) process to apply the new coatings extremely precisely. Each process machine is reported to cost $1,000,000.

---

Last edited by monochrome; 12-30-2013 at 09:39 AM.

[Fogel70]

Do you have something to support the idea that switching coatings will improve quality control? How does that work?

Well, "quality control" might not be the correct words, "quality assurance" might fit better.
The new HD coating manufacturing process applies the coating in a more controlled fashion and with higher accuracy than before.

In conventional multi-layer processes, the coating layer is produced by the vacuum evaporation method, in which coating materials are dissolved and deposited in a vacuum. This method, however, sometimes cause the unstable situation to achieve a coating layer with density sufficient enough to prevent disparity in the thickness and refractive index of the coating layer.

The HD Coating effectively solves this problem by employing a PENTAX-exclusive manufacturing process, while optimizing the density of its coating layer and controlling the thickness with the accuracy of a nanometer (one millionth of a millimeter). As the result, original design data on the lens coating is accurately applied to the actual coating layer to optimize anti-reflection performance of a lens.

New HD coating for PENTAX lenses - Press Releases - RICOH IMAGING - European Hub Site

[bxf]

....
If i was to buy it new today, i think i wouldn't for sure.

Sounds like a definite maybe

[Zygonyx]

Sounds like a definite maybe

Winner

[bossa]

Those 'flaws' make them so desirable.
A 'perfect' lens by itself is a boring and predictable one.

Purple Fringing is NOT desirable... FFS!

[Cynog Ap Brychan]

Purple Fringing is NOT desirable... FFS!

It looks quite good on a purple skirt

[northcoastgreg]

One obvious problem scarcely mentioned in discussions is the current global economic situation — it is hardly an atmosphere to feel crazily enthusiastic and indulge in a production of an all new lineup no one can buy (but people instead are economising and thinking thrice before committing, also asking themselves is the FF really that much better than an APS-C?

I'm always surprised how few people appreciate this aspect of the problem. It seems that many of the FF-ophiles either have an enormous amount of purchasing power at their disposal or have absolutely no conscience about running up their credit cards. Then they project their own situtation upon photographers in general. Most of the serious photographers I know shoot with APS-C DSLRs. They do so primarily for economic reasons: the advantages of FF are just not worth the extra costs (and the costs are more than just the camera: they are lenses, computing infrastructure, greater costs for larger prints, frames, etc.). Canon and Nikon seem to be trying to force their higher end APS-C users into FF, regardless of economic circumstances, as if the D610 really is an adequate substitute for the D300s. I know of several local photographers who are very frustrated that Canon keeps dragging its feet on producing a D7mkII. They resent being force marched into FF merely so Canon and Nikon can fleece them with the higher margins on FF products.

Another issue frequently ignored is the rising cost of lenses. Whereas advancing technology tends to drive prices down over time, in the case of lenses, it's working in the other direction. Improvement in sensor technology combined with the ability to easily pixel peep has forced lens manufacturers to really up their game. But it's also made lenses, particularly the high-end stuff, prohibitively expensive, with 24-70 f2.8 zooms over $2,000, and 70-200 f2.8 zooms closing in on $2,500.

[monochrome]

They resent being force marched into FF merely so Canon and Nikon can fleece them with the higher margins on FF products.

Canon and Nikon sell enough bodies to pros that they (Canon and Nikon) can look at the final cost to their intended customers after-tax, as a deductible business expense, and price to their customers' final cost.. Many of those bodies are leased, paid for monthly. It is not at all challenging to imagine 75,000 or 100,000 shutter clicks in a year, then rolling the camera into the used section at a dealer (for some amount of depreciated credit) and getting the next-better-body. As enthusiasts we pay retail, we pay sales tax and we can't deduct - so we bear the burden.

Lenses are, of course, an entirely different matter. CaNikon cannot count on a steady stream of leased upgrades from lenses, so they charge up for them. Not saying it is right - just saying why I don't fall into their trap. We really DO NOT WANT Pentax to be too successful with pro shooters.

Think of it like your bed. You buy sheets. You buy pillows. You buy the latest, greatest fleece blanket. And you're OK with that every couple years. But if you knew how little it cost to manfacture that pillow-top mattress you're sleeping on you'd be really angry, until you divide the cost by "once-every-15-years."

[Winder]

Another issue frequently ignored is the rising cost of lenses. Whereas advancing technology tends to drive prices down over time, in the case of lenses, it's working in the other direction. Improvement in sensor technology combined with the ability to easily pixel peep has forced lens manufacturers to really up their game. But it's also made lenses, particularly the high-end stuff, prohibitively expensive, with 24-70 f2.8 zooms over $2,000, and 70-200 f2.8 zooms closing in on $2,500.

I think you are looking at it wrong. To use the Canon 135L as an example, prices have not risen very much in the 17 years since it was introduced. Basically it has kept up with inflation. The technology in that lens has been paid for many times over, and improvements to manufacturing processes have made it even cheaper to produce. Newer technology is not driving up the price of the 135L or any lens.

Advances in technology drive down prices for good that employ older technology. The newer technologies always demand a premium and the R&D costs need to be recovered as soon as possible. You can't expect new technology to drive down the price of new technology. The "new technology" of sensors is forcing lenses designers to develop new lens technology to keep up.