[JimmyDranox]

Canon has one with build in TC and is expensive.

I think it is safe to say that Pentax will never have a lens like that with constant f4 in program.

A lens like 135-420mm would be f4.5-f5.6 or so.

I wonder way ''it is safe to say''? We really don't know what Pentax-Ricoh will do. But I see that most Pentax users have a pessimistic view of the future development of Pentax line. Many think that a FF camera will never came, and also about ''pro'' grade telelenses. And if Pentax supporters think so, how can be the Pentax line perceived in the whole photographic world?

That must be a strong reason to think for Ricoh managers.

[RonHendriks1966]

I wonder way ''it is safe to say''? We really don't know what Pentax-Ricoh will do. But I see that most Pentax users have a pessimistic view of the future development of Pentax line. Many think that a FF camera will never came, and also about ''pro'' grade telelenses. And if Pentax supporters think so, how can be the Pentax line perceived in the whole photographic world?

That must be a strong reason to think for Ricoh managers.

That is a lens not sold so much, so a third lens in that range will be a problematic to sell item. Unless one of those others go broke I don't see it coming.

[rawr]

I've never seen any independent camera test for low light AF capability.

'Capability', 'functionality' - these are vague terms. I just want to get the [EV] numbers.

I haven't done any Googling on formal low-light AF testing. I've seen a variety of AF tests out there done by various magazines and sites, but I haven't looked into the EV ranges they work with, nor whether they pretend to adopt some CIPA or ISO standard test. Even testing of exposure metering in low-light is rare.

Of the review sites, only Imaging Resource, to their credit, seems to bother systematically testing exposure and AF under low light (down to 1/16 footcandle/0.67 lux), but they don't attempt to numerically measure anything. The best you will get will be 'by-eye' assessments like:

"Color balance with Auto white balance is fairly neutral at higher light levels, just a touch cool, but took on an increasingly stronger magenta cast as light levels dropped and ISO increased, as we've seen with other Nikons. ... The camera's phase-detection autofocus system was able to focus on our test subject down to well below the 1/16 foot-candle light level unassisted with an f/2.8 lens, which is excellent." (for the Nikon D4s)

[Nicolas06]

I wonder way ''it is safe to say''? We really don't know what Pentax-Ricoh will do. But I see that most Pentax users have a pessimistic view of the future development of Pentax line.

Not necessary pessimistic... I would considerer to buy maybe a tele if for example I decide to go to Kenya. But if it is expensive and huge, no go for me. I will get 60-250+ TC instead.

So for me having a 200-400 f/4 FF compatible is pessimistic. Having a 120-400 f/4-5.6, lightweight and small (well like an 70-200 f/2.8 at least I guess). sharp wide open with APSC only image circle look much more interresting to me.

[JimmyDranox]

Everybody has his own needs or wishes. But for Ricoh , I have a massage:

Only those who dare, win.

[rawr]

Only those who dare, win.

'Paralysis by analysis' may be another apt cliche to describe where Ricoh seems to be, particularly with FF.

[thibs]

'Paralysis by analysis' may be another apt cliche to describe where Ricoh seems to be, particularly with FF.

And yet Pentax division is sane and healthy which really wasn't obvious at all, and growing market share at that.
Ricoh wants to earn money (even if small) rather than exploding market share and bleeding money. I can't disagree with them.

[monochrome]

And yet Pentax division is sane and healthy which really wasn't obvious at all, and growing market share at that.
Ricoh wants to earn money (even if small) rather than exploding market share and bleeding money. I can't disagree with them.

Ricoh is in for the long term. Our priorities are measured in days - as in, I want my xxx today!"

[Kunzite]

That's incorrect: our priorities are measured in yesterdays.
OMG! It's too late! PentaxIsDoomed! and so on.

[RonHendriks1966]

And yet Pentax division is sane and healthy which really wasn't obvious at all, and growing market share at that.
Ricoh wants to earn money (even if small) rather than exploding market share and bleeding money. I can't disagree with them.

It is a wise way to go.


On the other hand. If they can manage to make a FF camera model (like K-3) and run a productionline with between 2500-4000 units a month and make that profatable then I think they can release that camera today (or yesterday). With a productionrun between 30k and 48k units a year I think they can make the sales. That is a marketshare of max 5 % of the Full Frame market, so some of us may have to wait some time. If it can only be done in mass production needed at least twice that production I don´t know if that will come soon.

[jeff knight]

Edited: I was wrong.

[Kunzite]

If they don't want to make a FF, why would they say they'll make one?

[monochrome]

If they don't want to make a FF, why would they say they'll make one?

Don't bother. Just wait. Use a K-3.

Take pictures and don't sell your good FF lenses but don't waste your breath. FF is on tomorrow's plate.

[devouges]

A question from left-field, just for fun

If a Pentax/Ricoh FF DOES come out at Photokina, Who will buy it and who will wait till next year for version 2.

héhéhéhé....... A question just to get folks talking a bit.

[JimmyDranox]

I believe that more than 10% of Pentax DSLR users will buy a FF camera. I personally know some folks who didn't buy K-3, because they wait for an FF. Even more, a big part of Pentax users are not simple pleasure photographers, but enthusiasts, with more than one camera, and many lenses in their possession. And If this FF will cost less than 2500$, I think will be a boom from the beginning.