[Rondec]

I have said the same things about Sony and A-mount that I have said about Ricoh and K-mount. I have used A-mount as an example. I'm not personally invested in either. Probably going to be selling on Pentax body and lens in the very near future. I was originally going to up grade from my Canon 5D original to the A900, but Sony made it apparent they didn't have a solid plan and rumors of the OVF going away kept me with Canon. Sony has repeatedly missed the market and screwed up with their DSLR business.

What exactly are they trying to do? Its hard for me to appreciate what they are trying to do when they keep it a secret. You keep saying you "believe". You seem to be the one personally invested in the future. I only want to figure out what they are going to do so I that if I need to unload my lenses I can still get a premium for them from those who have blind faith.

It looks to me like they are trying to support three camera mounts -- the 645D, Q, and K mount. This isn't as hard as it sounds, as the 645D is not a huge seller world wide and after the initial sales are passed, it will tend to taper off.

Up to this point, they have only supported APS-C sensors in the k mount, but it seems that they will expand that next year. But I wouldn't expect low end full frame, but something mid-level, more for landscape photographers.

The Q is their answer to mirrorless, as they believe that mirrorless should be small (including the lenses) and that means having a smaller sensor size.

I think the whole thing is clear, but much of what they do is to try to build a base of lower end users that will then feed the flagship models. Hence the release of lenses like the 16-85 and cameras like the k-s1. They have been pretty busy in the last year. You may not like what they are doing, but I think, unlike the Sony Alpha mount, that the k mount is secure for the time being.

[thibs]

Also, except a couple leftovers from Hoya, AFAIK, they have not announced a single regular compact cam since Ricoh took over.
There's only WG serie (now Ricoh branded), Ricoh G (industrial type), Ricoh GR.
I don't think there's any other compact but leftovers.

[RonHendriks1966]

Also, except a couple leftovers from Hoya, AFAIK, they have not announced a single regular compact cam since Ricoh took over.
There's only WG serie (now Ricoh branded), Ricoh G (industrial type), Ricoh GR.
I don't think there's any other compact but leftovers.

Well the market for compacts is disapearing at the time. There is market for actioncam, snorkelcam and holidayzooms. Ricoh delivers on all three. The Gr. Is for a small advandced large sensor section that is attractieve to photographers who want to make serieus work.

[thibs]

Well the market for compacts is disapearing at the time. There is market for actioncam, snorkelcam and holidayzooms. Ricoh delivers on all three. The Gr. Is for a small advandced large sensor section that is attractieve to photographers who want to make serieus work.

Yes, that was my point (maybe bot obvious).
The only thing they're still doing is actually the good one.

I mean, Pentax was supposedly doing everything they shouldn't... this IMO, well planned.

[Winder]

It looks to me like they are trying to support three camera mounts -- the 645D, Q, and K mount. This isn't as hard as it sounds, as the 645D is not a huge seller world wide and after the initial sales are passed, it will tend to taper off.

Up to this point, they have only supported APS-C sensors in the k mount, but it seems that they will expand that next year. But I wouldn't expect low end full frame, but something mid-level, more for landscape photographers.

The Q is their answer to mirrorless, as they believe that mirrorless should be small (including the lenses) and that means having a smaller sensor size.

I think the whole thing is clear, but much of what they do is to try to build a base of lower end users that will then feed the flagship models. Hence the release of lenses like the 16-85 and cameras like the k-s1. They have been pretty busy in the last year. You may not like what they are doing, but I think, unlike the Sony Alpha mount, that the k mount is secure for the time being.

I would expect the 645z to sell pretty well once Ricoh gets the lenses back in North America. The new leaf lens should enable the 645z to sync flash at a much higher speed and add that with tethering and the 645z becomes a very serious commercial studio camera. The value the 645z brings to the MF market is pretty significant and I think they can do a lot of damage to P1 and Hassy especially with commercial photographers who are just getting started.

I don't really understand the market for the Q or Nikon 1. It seems to be the new market for the "serious" P&S user. My main issue with cameras like the Fuji X-T1 is that its too small for my to use. I actually wish the K-3 was a little taller with a bigger grip. I can only get 2 fingers on the grip with my little finger curled under the bottom. I'm sure the IQ is better than I think it is, but I haven't even had enough interest in them to read a review.

I don't think the K-mount future for a FF is really that clear. Yes, Ricoh said they are developing one, but that has happened in the past. The comments of "but with the question of when to launch/release the product, we will want to carefully study the market trend." sounds like they are still giving themselves an "out" if they change their mind. They sound a lot like Olympus and the development of 4/3. Olympus was carefully studying market trends too. I also find it odd that they chose to show lenses without any markings. The road map makes it pretty obvious what the lenses will be. Unless they are still too far away from final development for the lenses there is no reason to show unmarked bodies. The idea that they need to keep their plans secret is kind of funny. Neither Canon nor Nikon care what Ricoh is doing.

Its not that I like or don't like what they are doing. My issue is that I don't think they really know what they are doing with K-mount. I think they have lost too much talent under Hoya to bring high end lenses to the market in the near future.

[D1N0]

Indeed and, since they have the same position on DA 560mm f/5.6 too, it is also reasonable to further assume they serve the same purposes as on DA 560mm f/5.6: an AF/MF switch and a focus limiter, as shown below.

So why don't the DA* 60-250 and DA 300 not have focus limiters? Why would Pentax all of a sudden put focus limiters on their zooms? The DA 560 is an extreme Tele. It seems to me that you are reasoning away from an SR switch no matter what. I think chances are quite high Pentax will move to OIS in their tele lenses, since it is more effective than IBIS and it stabilizes the VF image.

[luftfluss]

So why don't the DA* 60-250 and DA 300 not have focus limiters? Why would Pentax all of a sudden put focus limiters on their zooms?

So, by your logic, why would there ever be product improvement?

I think chances are quite high Pentax will move to OIS in their tele lenses, since it is more effective than IBIS and it stabilizes the VF image.

I'd like to see where you find the measurements or direct comparison that OIS is "more effective than IBIS". Many people are of the opinion that Olympus's IBIS is the best stabilization in the industry. Luminous Landscape found the Oly's IBIS to be a bit better than Panasonic's OIS, in a direct comparison.

[Winder]

One area where Ricoh could possible make a marked improvement is to design IBIS to work with OIS for a greater improvement. It might not be possible, but if Ricoh could combine to two technologies they might have an edge. My guess is that the switch is a limiter switch. One of the biggest problems with the lenses is AF speed, and a limiter switch would make a noticeable difference.

[D1N0]

So, by your logic, why would there ever be product improvement?

I'd like to see where you find the measurements or direct comparison that OIS is "more effective than IBIS". Many people are of the opinion that Olympus's IBIS is the best stabilization in the industry. Luminous Landscape found the Oly's IBIS to be a bit better than Panasonic's OIS, in a direct comparison.

That's a conclusion I will leave to you, as I did not say that. Comparing with Olympus is useless because we are talking about Pentax who don't have 5 axis stabilisation. There is only so much room for compensation in a body. At large magnification the compensation will at some point start to falter and/or run into the limited space there is for movement (earlier with Full frame if you want a compact body, which Pentax wants). That is less of a problem for in lens OIS. That is why I think Pentax will take a two way strategy on this. IBIS and OIS for longer lenses.

[Mistral75]

So why don't the DA* 60-250 and DA 300 not have focus limiters? Why would Pentax all of a sudden put focus limiters on their zooms? The DA 560 is an extreme Tele. It seems to me that you are reasoning away from an SR switch no matter what. I think chances are quite high Pentax will move to OIS in their tele lenses, since it is more effective than IBIS and it stabilizes the VF image.

Why would Pentax put a focus limiter on their 150-450ish zoom? Because it's an extreme telezoom.

Why would they on their 70-200ish lens? Because all their competitors do on their current ones:

- Canon : 4 lenses, f/2.8 and f/4, with and without IS
- Nikon: 2 lenses, f/2.8 and f/4
- Sony: 3 lenses, f/2.8 and f/4 in A mount and f/4 in E mount.

All these nine lenses from Ricoh competitors have a focus limiter, which is logical taking into account the destination of these lenses and the consequent need for fast autofocus. Do you think that, for the first star lens under Ricoh era, for their first DFA* ever, they could envisage to offer a lesser value to their customers? I do not.

I am not, as you wrote, "reasoning away from an SR switch", I am considering a variety of clues and mostly reasoning by analogy:

- what is proposed by direct competitors,
- the fact that the second of the two side-by-side switches has the same position as the focus limiter on DA 560mm and a different position from the SR switch on DFA 645 90mm and DA 645 28-45mm,

and I am consequently inclined to consider this is a focus limiter and not a SR switch.

But this is only an opinion, even if I am tempted to consider it as an educated guess. I could be wrong and, as I have written before on the same subject, time will tell.

[Pål Jensen]

Well, one of the lenses show three switches and one button. What are they for? I'm sure one of them could be a limiter.
Both zooms are extremely thick. Why? Space for SR mechanism seems reasonable.
The 70-200 has 20 elements including lots of correcting elements. It is much more complex than the FA* 80-200.
All this points to optical stabilization.
I also believe it is very unlikely that Pentax developed optical stabilization for 645 use exclusively....

[Zygonyx]

Well, one of the lenses show three switches and one button. What are they for? I'm sure one of them could be a limiter.
Both zooms are extremely thick. Why? Space for SR mechanism seems reasonable.
The 70-200 has 20 elements including lots of correcting elements. It is much more complex than the FA* 80-200.
All this points to optical stabilization.
I also believe it is very unlikely that Pentax developed optical stabilization for 645 use exclusively....

Pal, as you mentioned it, does the 70-200mm patent file mention Lens SR unit/mecanism ?

[Mistral75]

Well, one of the lenses show three switches and one button. What are they for? I'm sure one of them could be a limiter.
Both zooms are extremely thick. Why? Space for SR mechanism seems reasonable.
The 70-200 has 20 elements including lots of correcting elements. It is much more complex than the FA* 80-200.
All this points to optical stabilization.
I also believe it is very unlikely that Pentax developed optical stabilization for 645 use exclusively....

Just a few data, Pål, and I will stop here (I have given an answer to your first point before):

- the non-stabilized Sony 70-200mm F2.8 G SSM has 19 elements and its optical design dates back to 2003 (Minolta AF 70-200mm f/2.8 APO G D SSM)
- the stabilized Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II (2009) has 21 elements
- the stabilized Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM II (2010) has 23 elements

So 20 elements for a 70-200 f/2.8 to be announced in 2015 doesn't particularly "point to optical stabilization".

[D1N0]

Why would they on their 70-200ish lens? Because all their competitors do on their current ones: - Canon : 4 lenses, f/2.8 and f/4, with and without IS - Nikon: 2 lenses, f/2.8 and f/4 - Sony: 3 lenses, f/2.8 and f/4 in A mount and f/4 in E mount.

Sure but all of those with is have three switches. Both the Tamron and Sigma don't have a focus limiter switch but do have af/mf and IS on off. Canon and Nikon cater to professionals. They have pro bodies. Pentax doesn't stand a chance in the pro sector. They will have to produce a pro-sumer body that is affordable to a larger number of their existing customers that are looking at the D610 6D and the A7.

[monochrome]

They will have to produce a pro-sumer body that is affordable to a larger number of their existing customers that are looking at the D610 6D and the A7.

My thoughts - I think - Probably not. Jim Malcolm in his Photokina interview said their pricing theory is 'lower volume, higher margin', so I don't expect Ricoh to build and price Flagship FF cameras to be affordable to larger numbers of people. A couple years ago I wrote there is a lot of room between Leica and Nikon - huh - maybe I was in the neighborhood.

I think their flagship APSc will compete against the D610 and A7, but on a small size basis. I think the FF will be aimed more toward the high side of the middle (between the D750 and D810) and offer nearly all the D810 quality and features for less money. 645 is their studio/pro field camera, they won't do an action camera at all, FF will be advanced landscape (near pro) and APSc will be enthusiast and advanced amateur with small as the distinguishing factor.

There really aren't that many old-dog Pentax users left - they waited too long - who are salivating to mount their FF lenses on a D610-level camera. Just the FA* and FA Limited people who I think will pay up for more 'stuff' and will actually buy digital-optimized new lenses to boot.

I think lenses for FF will be Premium more often than consumer, excellent lenses with all the features, and will be VERY EXPENSIVE.

Perhaps later there will be a less expensive FF model, but not the first one. They have to get the first one right the first time.

I think people here will positively howl at the prices.