[monochrome]

With all due respect to the "reliable poster",
I have my doubts about that claimed designation (on an unmarked hulk).

Pentax had the good sense to avoid the tainted "SDM" monicker in the new 645 wide zoom,
and aren't they dropping their beloved asterisk that drives the search engines wild (pun intended)?

Just reporting, sir. I had also read the star designation would become DA Pro, but this is DFA, so who knows? Said poster was quite specific though. IIRC I copied and pasted, then bolded.

IMHO 70, 200, 2.8 and FA are the important parts.

---

Last edited by monochrome; 09-20-2014 at 12:49 PM.

[lytrytyr]

Just reporting, sir. I had also read the star designation would become DA Pro, but this is DFA, so who knows? Said poster was quite specific though. IIRC I copied and pasted, then bolded.

It's also possible that employees internally have working names for their products,
that may or may not end up being used in the market when the product is finally announced officially.

[Rondec]

SDM already refers to a lot of different motors. The same ones aren't in the DA *55 as in the 16-50, for instance. Supposedly, they aren't even using the same motors now in the 16-50 and 50-135 as originally.

I don't know why Pentax doesn't say anything about it, but probably mostly because they don't want to admit that the original motors in the 16-50 and 50-135 were faulty.

[Mistral75]

With all due respect to the "reliable poster",
I have my doubts about that claimed designation (on an unmarked hulk).

Pentax had the good sense to avoid the tainted "SDM" monicker in the new 645 wide zoom,
and aren't they dropping their beloved asterisk that drives the search engines wild (pun intended)?

They aren't, at least on their latest roadmap published last Tuesday where the 70-200ish lens still appear as '* Tele Zoom' (Star Tele Zoom).

[drugal]

I think that star refers to the note below the road map.

[monochrome]

I think that star refers to the note below the road map.

Maybe - but it could also be the asterisk link from '2014 or later * ' at the left.

[cfraz]

aren't they dropping their beloved asterisk that drives the search engines wild (pun intended)?

I had also read the star designation would become DA Pro, but this is DFA, so who knows?

I think that star refers to the note below the road map.

Maybe - but it could also be the asterisk link from '2014 or later * ' at the left.

These quotes illustrate perfectly the problems of using the star as a lens branding mark. It is incredibly weak branding, and gives the impression that Pentax is only for those who already know the secret handshake, because the meaning of the * requires explanation by an insider for any potential new customer. I'm flabergasted that Ricoh hasn't nixed it yet - it simply makes no business sense to me.

What I wrote about this earlier.

[Cynog Ap Brychan]

I understand the use of * to denote the star performers of the Pentax lens range, but using * as an asterisk and a "star" on the same road map can only cause confusion.

[thibs]

With all due respect to the "reliable poster",
I have my doubts about that claimed designation (on an unmarked hulk).

Pentax had the good sense to avoid the tainted "SDM" monicker in the new 645 wide zoom,
and aren't they dropping their beloved asterisk that drives the search engines wild (pun intended)?

[sarcasm on]
Well if people can't use a search engine properly, no wonder...
[sarcasm off]

Still, they could take the opportunity to update their * to something else.

[zoolander]

Ok, if it is those type of photographers that are sponsored, I agree, it shouldn't happen. Though I wonder why, really. Would a sports photographer in a 100 years pick a Pentax? It's just not suitable for that sort of photography. It's Canon, Nikon, and perhaps Sony. The Samsung NX-1 seems to have the speed for that, too, but we'll have to see.

As for sports photography, you make a valid point. Before I even owned a Pentax I had heard that the Auto focus was terrible. When I tried out the bottom of the level cameras and compared them against Canon and Nikon, I found them to be extremely fast and accurate, but that may have been due to the kit lenses being screw drive...........

But the business model which Pentax uses, goes like this IMO:
You get really great image quality, but not a "sports" AF system, but its more than adequate.(I switched to Pentax for the brilliant image quality and the outstanding lenses. The AF system is more than adequate for the average consumer IMO). 90% of people use cameras for general photography, and the other 10% for sports. I think the business model is sound at the price points at which the models are in.

The problem with the business model:
Canon and Nikon are emphasizing the sports AF as their most important feature, while the IQ is digital (false color palette), or digitized looking. So the competition is doing the opposite with average IQ, and great AF, while Pentax is doing great IQ and average AF. After owning 2 non-Pentax cameras, I now know now that image quality is the 1st consideration when choosing a camera. But when you go online and watch reviews, the canikon army will tell you that AF is the most important thing in photography. You don't need a high speed AF to take great pictures, you need a camera that takes really great images with accurate colors, saturation, contrast and sharpness. But the message is lost because of the canikon hyping up something that most consumers don't really need.

Canikon Hype:
I personally do not like to get caught up in the canikon "AF is best" hype and dogma, when I know that IQ is best. Plus AF systems are not fool proof because my previous cameras AF was faster, but was not so magical that it can track anything and everything. Even with a very fast AF system, action photography is very difficult and there's a steep learning curve.

So to answer your question:
"Would a sports photographer choose a Pentax for sports photography ?" Maybe not, but sports photography is not the style of photography for most consumers. Consumers are mainly point and shoot, landscapes, family portraits, street-scapes, wildlife, macro and some sports. but when Pentax makes a "Sports" camera, I'm sure it will get picked up by sports photographers.

The K-S1 is an interesting concept, yes, but one that hasn't been thought through. They want to appeal to an audience that is coming from the smartphone generation? Why is the camera so dated, then? Where's the video functionality? Where's the app support? APIs? It's grandpa's camera in a fancy new dress. The NX-1 however, that's a through and through modern camera. It has modern components and a modern looking interface. Even if the exterior isn't that fancy.

Those are some very valid points. Maybe you are right, maybe there isn't enough substance to the K-S1 in terms of technology. So thats why I suggest it will become the entry level camera when the 16mp cameras are run-out, and the K-50 will be replaced with a camera with a K-S50 with more features and weather sealing. But I have been longing for the mode dial to be taken off the top plate and integrated on the back. I feel the retro camera look where all the functions have migrated back to the top plate, make the camera a pain to use. You have to tilt the camera constantly to change set-ups - its just more useless hype and gimmicks.

I've only looked a little at the NX-1, and for me, when imaging resources and the others do test images, thats when I'll comment. Typically Samsung image quality is below average to average. So Samsung doesn't quite float my boat.

[kadajawi]

As for sports photography, you make a valid point. Before I even owned a Pentax I had heard that the Auto focus was terrible. When I tried out the bottom of the level cameras and compared them against Canon and Nikon, I found them to be extremely fast and accurate, but that may have been due to the kit lenses being screw drive...........

But the business model which Pentax uses, goes like this IMO:
You get really great image quality, but not a "sports" AF system, but its more than adequate.(I switched to Pentax for the brilliant image quality and the outstanding lenses. The AF system is more than adequate for the average consumer IMO). 90% of people use cameras for general photography, and the other 10% for sports. I think the business model is sound at the price points at which the models are in.

The problem with the business model:
Canon and Nikon are emphasizing the sports AF as their most important feature, while the IQ is digital (false color palette), or digitized looking. So the competition is doing the opposite with average IQ, and great AF, while Pentax is doing great IQ and average AF. After owning 2 non-Pentax cameras, I now know now that image quality is the 1st consideration when choosing a camera. But when you go online and watch reviews, the canikon army will tell you that AF is the most important thing in photography. You don't need a high speed AF to take great pictures, you need a camera that takes really great images with accurate colors, saturation, contrast and sharpness. But the message is lost because of the canikon hyping up something that most consumers don't really need.

Canikon Hype:
I personally do not like to get caught up in the canikon "AF is best" hype and dogma, when I know that IQ is best. Plus AF systems are not fool proof because my previous cameras AF was faster, but was not so magical that it can track anything and everything. Even with a very fast AF system, action photography is very difficult and there's a steep learning curve.

So to answer your question:
"Would a sports photographer choose a Pentax for sports photography ?" Maybe not, but sports photography is not the style of photography for most consumers. Consumers are mainly point and shoot, landscapes, family portraits, street-scapes, wildlife, macro and some sports. but when Pentax makes a "Sports" camera, I'm sure it will get picked up by sports photographers.



Those are some very valid points. Maybe you are right, maybe there isn't enough substance to the K-S1 in terms of technology. So thats why I suggest it will become the entry level camera when the 16mp cameras are run-out, and the K-50 will be replaced with a camera with a K-S50 with more features and weather sealing. But I have been longing for the mode dial to be taken off the top plate and integrated on the back. I feel the retro camera look where all the functions have migrated back to the top plate, make the camera a pain to use. You have to tilt the camera constantly to change set-ups - its just more useless hype and gimmicks.

I've only looked a little at the NX-1, and for me, when imaging resources and the others do test images, thats when I'll comment. Typically Samsung image quality is below average to average. So Samsung doesn't quite float my boat.

I know sports photography is not important for most, and Pentax good enough for the rest. But you complained about the exposure/advertising Canikon gets thanks to sponsoring sports photographers, and I argue that if Canikon wouldn't sponsor them, they'd still be buying Canikon. Basically, they are battling each other. Until Pentax gets the AF speed right, and the right lenses, and the professional service at sports events, Pentax wouldn't get into that market (and get that advertising) anyway. Even if they would offer sponsorships.


To be fair, I just can't get my K-5 to focus properly on my 50mm, and it seems to be all over the place. Sometimes spot on, sometimes back, sometimes front focus. What use is image quality if it can't focus right, even in daylight? I guess the focus area is too big? Proper focus indicators, with maybe smaller focus points in the center that can light up individually would be good to have. I mean, Samsung can have 400+ focus points covering virtually everything, and Pentax is stuck at... 9? Yes, it's their new sensor, but even if Pentax were to get it, they are stuck with Fujitsu processors, which are probably nowhere near as good as Samsung ones...


I find Canon and Nikon, and for that matter Sony, Panasonic, Olympus and Fuji images to be more than good enough. Accurate colors... pixels are there to be punished, on photos where IQ matters I'm going to manipulate the hell out of it anyway.


The K-S line is for experiments... for function follows form, if I understood that correctly. The next K-S might be very different again. I think the K-01 would have fallen under that designation, had they had that idea earlier. I would not be surprised if the K-S1 was some outside the box thinking by their designers, and then their engineers wanted to shoehorn in what they have in their other cameras to keep development costs and time low. I can get behind that, though for this particular concept I do think they should have put in a bit more effort to make sense (and then put THAT back into their main line of cameras).


Also, Pentaxforums did a hands on I think, and complained about the grip not being very good? Unless they go for a Nikon FM2 sort of body I'm perfectly fine with the ergonomics of my K-5. Add a few more buttons perhaps for stuff I want to use constantly, but apart from that it is perfect. I don't see any improvements possible. (Though I do like some of the ideas in the K-S1, like an illuminated mode dial... it just has to be illuminated barely, so that when it is really dark outside I still have a clue what is going on). Well, and an OLED screen would be great, because they can be dimmed really good, and have a ton of contrast. i.e. a black photo will be black, not grey, especially at night, where it may be blindingly so.)

[zoolander]

To be fair, I just can't get my K-5 to focus properly on my 50mm, and it seems to be all over the place. Sometimes spot on, sometimes back, sometimes front focus. What use is image quality if it can't focus right, even in daylight? I guess the focus area is too big? Proper focus indicators, with maybe smaller focus points in the center that can light up individually would be good to have. I mean, Samsung can have 400+ focus points covering virtually everything, and Pentax is stuck at... 9?

That sounds like you have a problem with your K-5. Maybe you have some dust in there or somethings malfunctioned. You might want to send it in for re-calibration, because I had a similar conversation on PF regarding front and back focusing, and yours sounds like its got problems. My screw drive lenses are all spot on, and do not need an AF fine tune, but one Sigma screw drive lens had the problem bad - in live view it focused fine at the widest aperture, but through the VF it was off.

Well, and an OLED screen would be great, because they can be dimmed really good, and have a ton of contrast. i.e. a black photo will be black, not grey, especially at night, where it may be blindingly so.)

Did you mean an electronic viewfinder with an OLED screen. Dude, I had one on my Sony, at night they're terrible. The problem is is all you see at night through the EVF is mush, its super grainy even on a well lit street, but switching to live view sort of solves the problem. But there is no way in hell you can manual focus with an EVF at night. All you can do is just auto focus on what you think is your subject, take the shot and hope you get a good image.

I find Canon and Nikon, and for that matter Sony, Panasonic, Olympus and Fuji images to be more than good enough. Accurate colors... pixels are there to be punished, on photos where IQ matters I'm going to manipulate the hell out of it anyway.

I had a Nikon, and every Nikon except the really high end models have false colors - to me they're digital facsimiles, or a "Nikon fax machine". Canon APS-C gear look muted, and digitized - a "Canon fax machine". My previous Sony was a bit better than my Nikon, and had vibrant colors, but it was still digital. From memory I felt that Panasonic was Digital. Olympus was pretty good. Fuji is really good and film like. For me on APS-C, I only like Pentax and Fuji image quality.

I can't stand Photoshop, and don't really wanna waste my time fine tuning images - images which took a fraction of a second to compose and take, and 10 minutes to process. Lifes too short for that. But if it floats your boat, enjoy yourself. Perhaps that Samsung could be an interesting model for you, but I'd be inclined to really try it out in the store at least a half a dozen times, and do a tonne of research. I think it will be hard to find a mirrorless camera that has a good AF, but you never know.

[kadajawi]

Hm. I just thought my K-5 AF isn't that precise, or it is really a matter of a too large AF sensor.

I meant OLED screen, not viewfinder. Also I find optical viewfinders really hard to focus manually.

Most of the editing is done in Lightroom, and doesn't take much time. Anyway, those photos that are really worth it tend to take longer to prepare, compose and take, so spending a day or two editing them is ok.

[RonHendriks1966]

So to answer your question:
"Would a sports photographer choose a Pentax for sports photography ?" Maybe not, but sports photography is not the style of photography for most consumers. Consumers are mainly point and shoot, landscapes, family portraits, street-scapes, wildlife, macro and some sports. but when Pentax makes a "Sports" camera, I'm sure it will get picked up by sports photographers.

There are many Canon/Nikon camera's sold to moms and dads to cover the sports for their children. They choose systems from wel known sports photographers that are sponsored and shoot CaNikon. You do sell camera's by having sponsored photographers and that should be the goal on spending budget on these ambassadours. Pentax doesn't do that at the time, or not so very smart.

[zoolander]

Hm. I just thought my K-5 AF isn't that precise, or it is really a matter of a too large AF sensor.

No, I believe that the Pentax AF system is precise, its just not super-quick. But if its all over the place, then that doesn't sound right. Your screw drive lenses should be perfect as far as I am aware. I asked the forum a while back about my sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 which would back focus only at f4 (it was fine on the other apertures). I gave it to Sigma to fix, and they also wanted my K-5 to calibrate it to the lens, but I didn't give the K-5.

In my thread, folks talked about having problems like you describe, and stating that that was the severe case of the AF system going haywire, and in need of repair.

In my case of my Sigma lens, what is needed is USB connectivity to the lens, so's that the ROM chip in the lens can have its firmware updated. Thats why I believe all these products SHOULD have USB connectivity, like flashes and lenses.

If I were you, I would create a new thread describing what is happening with your camera, and people will tell you if you've got a problem and how to address it.

My simple test is to put the camera on a tripod, set the lens to infinity (set the aperture), and see where the focus ring ends up. I then switch it to live, set the lens to infinity, and see if the focus ring ends up in the same spot, and also whether both the image are in focus. The live view auto focus is very accurate, the phase detect AF works off a separate sensor. If the phase detect sensor is messing up, its either the phase detect system going bonkers and it needs to be fixed or re-calibrated, or the firmware needs to be updated in your camera. Maybe also the firmware in the lens itself - regardless of whether the lens is screw drive or has an internal focus motor.

I do not think the phase detect sensor being too big as being the problem, I think the problem is that they weren't big enough, and needed more pixels and better programming. The guys writing the firmware for cameras, need to have the camera communicate with every lens. It could be a matter of firmware support - i don't know for sure.

Just post a new thread, and describe those symptoms of your camera.