[bossa]

Personally I think this ^^ is extremely far-fetched

There's no wink-nod going on that allows Pentax to meekly survive in the aps-c space as long as they don't fly towards the sun of FF and get their wings melted by CaNikon-god. (although it is a vivid image.)

Canon/Nikon are still concerned with, in probable order:

1) Each Other
2) MILC aps-c DSLR tier disruption, from Fuji, Oly, Sony, Panasonic, and Samsung.
3) Keeping their own internal product lines from stepping on each other - thus, an 'upgrade' to a D7100/7D is, as they wish it to be, FF.


Whatever Pentax does in the aps-c DSLR space almost doesn't matter to Canon/Nikon, and whether or not Pentax goes FF depends mostly on two things, IMO:

A) Can they get sensors from Sony, and at what price, and
B) The level of internal corporate inertia, probably centered around the cost of FF lens production as the stopping point.

I've always thought reason B above is a much bigger factor than people realize. Corporate execs are often not as visionary and daring as many people imagine; a lot of the time their main concern is to survive in their position until their kids are out of college (I'm dead serious here,) and then maybe to retirement - being the executive sponsor of something that carries risk often isn't on their career agenda.

People, I think, mistakenly assume that vast, accurate market research is the reason behind a lot of what looks like non-decisions, and in reality it's just as often simply inertia, and top-down-driven fear of new investment in areas where there's a hint of technological disruption.

.

I agree that it's the lenses that would be the sticking point preventing an quick release of an FF body.

Also, if Pentax had kept their naming conventions for any FF compatible lenses (i.e. FA*200 = DA*200) but modified them slightly (D-FA*200) to reflect the newer models they may have been able to make a FF sooner without destroying their own lens market.

If Pentax bring out a FF body and don't launch a fairly complete line of lenses simultaneously then they'll lose-out anyway due to Tamron & Sigma filling the gap...unless Pentax plans to license the designs for lenses from those two manufacturers in order to fill the void. Is this a possible reason that many lenses for Pentax mount are being discontinued?

[Uluru]

.. Is this a possible reason that many lenses for Pentax mount are being discontinued?

For third party manufacturers, the K-mount is a slowly dying mount.

Which means, if third party needs to economise, and need to streamline their production to make it profitable, non-selling or low-selling items go first and Pentax mount is to go first. That has just happened to Sigma 70-200, which is no longer available for the K-mount. One more lens no longer available.

We want to believe that they don't make lenses for Pentax because "Pentax is up to something" but that theory does not hold water. The lenses are being dropped off during the last few years more than ever before, because to third party lens manufacturers, Pentax mount was lowest selling, and they predict will be the lowest selling in foreseeable future. Simply not worth bothering about.

If Ricoh does something positive and bold for the K-mount, some lenses will return back. But if Ricoh does not invest in Pentax as expected (or as we hoped for), why we should expect others to cling to Pentax? If you had a lens company and waited to see, or understand, Ricoh's moves, you would drop the K-mount straight away, because your precious investment would only sit idle.

[jatrax]

If Ricoh does something positive and bold for the K-mount, some lenses will return back. But if Ricoh does not invest in Pentax as expected (or as we hoped for), why we should expect others to cling to Pentax?

I see it as a race between 3rd party manufacturers dropping the k-mount (descending curve) and Ricoh re-building the brand and increasing sales (increasing curve). We are now seeing the (delayed) reaction of declining sales of k-mount. If the sales increase enough that those curves cross, the reaction will be to start making lenses for k-mount again. But there will be the same delayed reaction. Once the production is dis-continued there needs to be a good incentive to re-start. It would have been better if sales had increased sooner so that we did not see this reaction but that did not happen. Even if k-mount sales increase beyond a profitable threshold for Sigma it still might be years before they see that and react to it.

[clackers]

And since we are talking light bending around corners (general knowledge, it doesn't

Then what is "diffraction"??

Someone pass me that cheese sandwich, I'm getting a headache!

---

Last edited by clackers; 08-13-2014 at 08:43 PM.

[Uluru]

I see it as a race between 3rd party manufacturers dropping the k-mount (descending curve) and Ricoh re-building the brand and increasing sales (increasing curve). We are now seeing the (delayed) reaction of declining sales of k-mount. If the sales increase enough that those curves cross, the reaction will be to start making lenses for k-mount again. ...

It depends on what increases in sales.
Is it lower-end K-mount cameras? That would mean kit lenses are sold more too (by default)?
Or is it the Q? Is it K-3 that is breaking K-5 sales? Something else?
When Ricoh says "increased sales" it may mean anything — from more cameras sold, to less cost spent in selling same number of cameras and lenses — both read as "increased sales", but the fact remains: for third party manufacturers it is not economical to support K-mount and they are dropping off some very good lenses.
70mm macro is one fabulous lens, which does not even exist in the Pentax lineup. The loss is even greater. I won't even mention 70-200 because Pentax has no 70-200 either..

[jatrax]

It depends on what increases in sales. Is it lower-end K-mount cameras? That would mean kit lenses are sold more too (by default)? Or is it the Q? Is it K-3 that is breaking K-5 sales? Something else?

I actually meant theoretical sales increases of k-mount. As in, IF Ricoh can increase sales. They have/had a limited amount of time in which to do that, before all remaining 3rd party support is gone. And they have used up quite a bit of whatever time they ever had. It appears that 3rd party manufacturers hung in a few years waiting to see what Ricoh would do. They have watched and seen the numbers and this is the result. It does not mean it has to be permanent, but I think it does mean that the numbers have not increased enough (YET) to make continued production viable for Sigma.

[robjmitchell]

While it's shame that sigma has stopped producing some great lenses in K-mount, its hardly surprising given their recent innovative releases and high demand.
It's also not that surprising that people who buy pentax often prefer small and light rather than massive and fast.

[GlassJunkie]

Then what is "diffraction"??

Someone pass me that cheese sandwich, I'm getting a headache!

Diffraction is the bending of a wave (light, rf, mw, etc) caused by its movement near an edge or iris or other obstruction (pixel edge)... it becomes noise and bounces until absorbed etc. It is how we see the edges in the interior light box in a camera (not 100% of light is absorbed by the black) some is diffracted, and a wee bit is reflected.

[Dan]

I dunno. The blind comparison that Adam did (between a K-5IIs and a K3) showed something like a 40/60 split - 40% of the people thought the K-5IIs picture looked better than the K-3....

He downsampled the K-3 output to 16mp and he used a mediocre lens. I think his results show that if you intend to use mediocre (or crappy) lenses and downsample your output then there is no benefit to a 24 megapixel sensor over a sensor with a somewhat lower pixel density.

While it may seem that I am being critical of his test, I actually think that it is relevant for a lot of DSLR users. Lots of folks use lenses that are mediocre (at best), and many folks shrink down their images for web display, or to display the full image on their computer screens. Only a relatively small percentage of users make large prints. Moreover, even with large prints it can be difficult to discern differences in pixel density. Given this, pixel density is not a reason for most users to choose a K-3 over a K-5IIs. Of course the K-3 has other advantages, and the higher resolution of the sensor is of use to those who have invested in first-rate glass and like to pixel peep.

Dan

[WPRESTO]

On the matter of lenses, sad that Tamron's new 150-600mm will not be available in K-mount, especially because tests indicate that in the 150-500mm range it is apparently better than either the Sigma 50-500 (which only reaches about 420mm) or the 150-500, and at about $1100 is very reasonably priced. Difficult to get good quality lenses of 400 to 600mm, either SFL or zoom, that do not require selling your children into perpetual servitude. Remember Spiratone's 400 f6.3? A cheap lens in terms of price, but gave reasonable results (for the time). I've always thought lens makers were missing out by not offering good quality non-autofocus telephotos of modest aperture (f5.6 to f8), even with either a pre-set or fixed aperture - basically an ED glass version of the once popular 500 f8 mirror lenses. They could be offered in T-mount to fit about any camera body at no additional cost to the the manufacturer. In some ways, the Kowa 500 f5.6 fits the description, but at over $3500 most DSLR owners won't take a chance on it. However, what if it were available at half that price??

[philbaum]

I dunno. The blind comparison that Adam did (between a K-5IIs and a K3) showed something like a 40/60 split - 40% of the people thought the K-5IIs picture looked better than the K-3.

That's one datum (or a few dozen) of not being really 'blown away' by simple pixel density, in my view.

It seems that, with some moderately priced normal lenses, the K-3 should have 10-20% better resolution because of pixel density. It should have another 20-30% over a K-5 because of the AA filter.

Put together, BOTH of them produce a change, but it's tough (not impossible) to see half of the change.

Let's do the very same test with a Sigma ART 35/1.4 on those cams. Should be easier to spot differences with a sharpness monster.

Maybe all this indicates is that the quality of an image is about more than sharpness and resolution. You can show things objectively on a chart that the mind doesn't really appreciate or care about. The fact that 60% thought the K3 image was better is quite significant IMO. Its like high fidelity sound, As tools become more refined, the cost per gains becomes higher and higher. I skipped the k5II in favor of the K3. Both good cameras evidently.

[ak_kiwi]

As an expert witness, I have testified many times that the Chairman of Sigma is known to keep a parrot in his office and likes to hold a cutlass between his teeth while counting out the company's pieces of eight.

Show us the licences, mi hearty. If Sigma pirate one they pirate them all. The most recent spat was a multi-million dollar payment to Nikon for infringeing their VR system.

As a Pentax shooter all I can say to the above is thank goodness for Pirates!

In view of the recent announcements of discontinued/ unavailability of Sigma K-mounts -
Seems like Sigma has sailed to windward of the Pentax vessel as one would a plague ship.
I wonder if it would be prudent for our Pentax Forum team to also secure a Q & A with Sigma and Tamron? (Before we are completely Jolly Rogered)

[jcdoss]

I wonder if it would be prudent for our Pentax Forum team to also secure a Q & A with Sigma and Tamron? (Before we are completely Jolly Rogered)

That seems like a better idea than asking Pentax anything.

[Kunzite]

I'm afraid the only efficient method to persuade Sigma in making more K-mount lenses would be for us to buy Sigma lenses - many, pricey Sigma lenses. Don't count on me, though.

If asked, Sigma will give a non-answer about deciding based on estimated sales numbers.

[konraDarnok]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but between Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Pentax, Pentax is the only one who doesn't have any provision for an electronic aperture control? The mechanical linkage in the K-mount is going to make it more expensive to support by third parties.