[7samurai]

i was waiting for the Pentax DA135-380mm to be announced. I guess it's more vaporware. It did look very attractive for a general kit with a K-3, 18-135mm, 135-380mm, and a teleconverter (assuming it would work on this lens)

[monochrome]

I'll put on my cynic's hat for this one. K-01 design strategy:

1) Start with stock entry DSLR
2) Remove mirror
3) Remove pentaprism (doesn't work without mirror anyway)
4) Hire a known designer to make the best of what's left

I think you have it backwards. I get where you are going - but the current mid-range dSLR's are K-01's with a mirror box and viewfinder added on.

Pentax introduced the Prime-M imaging engine in the K-01 (which apparently changed the video capability dramatically) creating knock-on effects in other systems such as metering, introduced Live View, as well as a significant redesign of the mechanics of IBIS and some other smaller changes internally. M ending up buried under TAv wasn't clearly explained, that is, the functional limitations and Menu/Control compromises of the K-01 aren't limitations of the K-01 so much as they are limitations of the Mid-Range Pentax cameras across the board.

K-01 was thus a major change for Pentax, ground-breaking in some respects, but that message was lost in the all the Hooo-Rahhhh over the unusual visual design. The visual design itself was a derivative reference to the Leica Digilux 1, as shown by Steve Huff



but that was never exploited by Newson or Pentax and it could have been.

Much has been made of the rubber card cover / flap as a fault, but it works just fine once one learns how to close it - that was never handled by Pentax at all. Much has been made of the placement of the Green Button, and maybe there is some fault there but I've developed muscle memory for its location over time and I don't mind it so much.

The K-01 was, in my view, not so much a failure in and of itself as it was a failure of Pentax to commit to what they were trying to do. They didn't allow the internal designers to design the exterior around the interior. They didn't feature the engineering advances, rather they featured visuals (which are meaningless). They didn't carefully prepare the battle field of reviewers and early adopters for the references, changes and new ideas. They were up against a raft of competitors' brushed aluminum jewels of fit and finish with less robust technology - offered by companies with more reach in retail marketing and deeper relationships in the print and digital opinion-maker community.

They didn't properly advertise and market the K-01. They woefully mispriced it. Pentax USA, in my opinion, actively refused to support the camera from a distribution and support perspective at all, as I have detailed here previously. I would not be surprised to learn some day that USA actually poisoned the well for the product with vendors.

All of that is really a shame because as image output goes K-01 is a great camera.

[totsmuyco]

I am new to Pentax and I haven’t used the K-01. Thinking about it, the K-01 concept is a great concept. Pentax knows their strength and they need to position their products as cameras able to withstand tough weather conditions and can produce quality images at par with Canon and Nikon. The price is also reasonable compared to the competitors.
I totally agree that Pentax should prepare for an ambush from critics which I believe that at times the reviews made are bias. Pentax should push their products with a strong commitment. Here in the Philippines, we do not see much promotion for Pentax cameras. I did a lot of reading before I shifted to Pentax. I had to be convinced with the system. I gathered a lot of info from this forum and dpreview.com. However, majority of camera buyers here do not read information available in the web. Most of them rely on information provided by friends or sales representatives.

[WPRESTO]

Where is the 10-600 f/1.2 Macro zoom?

That's EDIF constant aperture, weight <one kilo, price <$1000.

What's remarkable is that zooms covering roughly 24 to 1000mm are available, and the quality at both ends is better than perhaps we'd like to admit, although I think you'd have to settle for something like 26~600mm if you want a constant f2.8. AND, either for under $1000.

[thibs]

Instead of listening to in-house designers and outside consulting experts, why oh why don't they listen to we the people who use Pentax????

Because our suggestions would have nothing to do with any financial reality (not to say a bunch of other obvious things) ?
Same for other brands BTW.

[woodywesty]

i was waiting for the Pentax DA135-380mm to be announced. I guess it's more vaporware. It did look very attractive for a general kit with a K-3, 18-135mm, 135-380mm, and a teleconverter (assuming it would work on this lens)

I was pretty excited about the announcement of the DA135-380mm as well but it looks like it is as you stated the continuation of the DA 18-135mm lens which means that it won't be able to match the image quality of the DA 300mm combined with the new teleconvertor. Plus, the use of the new TC with the slow 135-380 is going to make low light focusing harder. So it looks like the DA*300mm is the longest high quality glass we're going to get from Pentax...

[normhead]

I was pretty excited about the announcement of the DA135-380mm as well but it looks like it is as you stated the continuation of the DA 18-135mm lens which means that it won't be able to match the image quality of the DA 300mm combined with the new teleconvertor. Plus, the use of the new TC with the slow 135-380 is going to make low light focusing harder. So it looks like the DA*300mm is the longest high quality glass we're going to get from Pentax...

You mean like apart from the 560? OH wait, you mean high quality cheap glass.... because Nikon and Canon are always putting out product like that so Pentax should follow suit.

In all seriousness though with a 1.4 TC out, you should be thinking in terms of a 100% difference. So you have the 50-135, the 60-250 and 300, double 300 or 250 and you get 500-600, voila the 560. Pentax is doing what they need yo do to offer alterenatives. You have the Canon EF 600 ƒ4 or the Nikon AF-s 600 ƒ4. both around 10 grand, and you can argue that a 560 @ ƒ5.6 should be a little cheaper, OK then, a lot cheaper...

Why anyone would buy the 560 when the Sigma 500 is ƒ4.5 and a grand cheaper is beyond me, and yes, if you're planning to use a TC, that 2/3 of a stop could make a difference.

40mm shorter and a stop slower than Nikon and Canon, it's hard to understand how Pentax could think this was a high end product. A while ago a guy with one of those 600 ƒ4s sneered at me, "I don't use 5.6 lenses." in reference to my A-400 ƒ5.6. How can I be happy buying a lens that costs $7,000 and doesn't get me any respect?

[woodywesty]

You mean like apart from the 560? OH wait, you mean high quality cheap glass.... because Nikon and Canon are always putting out product like that so Pentax should follow suit.

In all seriousness though with a 1.4 TC out, you should be thinking in terms of a 100% difference. So you have the 50-135, the 60-250 and 300, double 300 or 250 and you get 500-600, voila the 560. Pentax is doing what they need yo do to offer alterenatives. You have the Canon EF 600 ƒ4 or the Nikon AF-s 600 ƒ4. both around 10 grand, and you can argue that a 560 @ ƒ5.6 should be a little cheaper, OK then, a lot cheaper...

Why anyone would buy the 560 when the Sigma 500 is ƒ4.5 and a grand cheaper is beyond me, and yes, if you're planning to use a TC, that 2/3 of a stop could make a difference.

40mm shorter and a stop slower than Nikon and Canon, it's hard to understand how Pentax could think this was a high end product. A while ago a guy with one of those 600 ƒ4s sneered at me, "I don't use 5.6 lenses." in reference to my A-400 ƒ5.6. How can I be happy buying a lens that costs $7,000 and doesn't get me any respect?

Ya know.... I would just LOVE to know what all went on in Ricoh/Pentax that ended up with them making the DA 560.... what on earth were they thinking?? In my dreams I think about the Sigma 500 and hope that someday I'll be able to own one but in the mean time I'm saving for the DA* 300mm and the new TC. which based on what you've shown us and others is a great combo and will give me lots of bird photo opportunities until I get rich! ha, ha.....

[ElJamoquio]

I would just LOVE to know what all went on in Ricoh/Pentax that ended up with them making the DA 560.... what on earth were they thinking??

"How could we make a lot of money from our customers?"
"Let's take a 560 non-telephoto telescope, and tell our customers it's like having a 870mm."
"Great! 870mm at $7-8k is a bargain!"

[IchabodCrane]

....

40mm shorter and a stop slower than Nikon and Canon, it's hard to understand how Pentax could think this was a high end product.

....

Not to mention the DA 560 hasn't been designated as FF compatible, either (unlike the Canon and Nikon lenses).

[woodywesty]

"How could we make a lot of money from our customers?"
"Let's take a 560 non-telephoto telescope, and tell our customers it's like having a 870mm."
"Great! 870mm at $7-8k is a bargain!"

You know..... sadly..... I can imagine someone in the company actually thinking of that... like maybe some higher up from the copier side of things.

Oh well.... they DID make the darn thing and it seems to be OK optically. It is too long but if it were cheap enough I might consider it but that would have to be considerably cheaper than the Sigma 500mm which won't happen because it wasn't cheap to make.

[Kunzite]

Not to mention the DA 560 hasn't been designated as FF compatible, either (unlike the Canon and Nikon lenses).

That's still to be determined AFAIK. It appears to cover the format, the question is how well?

I'd say this lens was the best they could do given the circumstances (and that the project was started under Hoya). A 600 f/4 sounds nice, but it wouldn't be $7000 - how about almost double, like Canon's ($12719, BH price)? If they manage to drop the price a bit, it will start to make more sense. I'm not looking to buy one so I don't really care.
No, it doesn't have to be cheaper than a Sigma.

[IchabodCrane]

That's still to be determined AFAIK. It appears to cover the format, the question is how well?

That's why I wrote "designated".

[normhead]

That's still to be determined AFAIK. It appears to cover the format, the question is how well?

I'd say this lens was the best they could do given the circumstances (and that the project was started under Hoya). A 600 f/4 sounds nice, but it wouldn't be $7000 - how about almost double, like Canon's ($12719, BH price)? If they manage to drop the price a bit, it will start to make more sense. I'm not looking to buy one so I don't really care.
No, it doesn't have to be cheaper than a Sigma.

The Nikon and Canon are both listed on the Henry's website at $9,799 and $1,600 on sale. The Pentax isn't on sale. And I agree it doesn't have to be cheaper, but being only 60mm longer and ƒ4.5 compared to ƒ5.6, it has to be at least the same price.

The Sigma is listed as $5,999.99 compared $6,999.

I can't afford any of these lenses, but why would I pay $1000 more for a slower lens, especially when I know my A-400 5.6 works poorly with my 1.7 TC.
OK. honestly. even if you plan to stay with Pentax, F* 250-600 for 7k or 560 for 7k... which do you choose?

[Kunzite]

60 mm longer means more than halfway the road to 600mm

A second hand lens which is at least 16 years old, for the same price as a new one? That's obvious.