[Pål Jensen]

What makes you so affirmative?

Common sense
...and the fact that I have seen the construction plan of the 70-200/2.8 and it has definitely correcting elements for stabilization. And theres also the button on the lens body. Compare with stabilized 645 lenses....

---------- Post added 09-20-14 at 06:31 PM ----------

I also don't understand why everybody believes without question that these lenses are FF capable. How could anyone possibly know this? All we have is an unmarked, unlabeled, and untested (by you) lens in a glass display at a trade show? All anyone can really say is that it "looks like it will be" FF capable.

I don't doubt something is churning at Pentax/Ricoh, but I agree that guys on both sides are saying things that can't possibly be known.

It is telling that they are not labeled "APS only" on the roadmap. Prevous prototypes have.
Also, it make no sense to make such long telephotos for APS only. The lenght, size and weight will be the same. Only the exit pupil must be restricted to only fit the smaller APS image circle. It makes no sense unless Pentax have decided they never ever whatsoever will make an FF k-mount body....

---------- Post added 09-20-14 at 06:35 PM ----------

The business model that works is not so much about making things that people want to buy as making people want things that you sell.

It is obvious (to me at least) that Pentax has been moved upmarked. I think that trend will continue....

---

Last edited by Pål Jensen; 09-20-2014 at 09:36 AM.

[monochrome]

Just a general post here for the thread and those who disagree. These are my considered opinions, developed from years of reading inside and outside the camera universe and a lifetime of studying businesses. If I was really any good, or really motivated I'd have built and sold one or two businesses by now - but that's for another time.

There is a path for Ricoh. It may be narrow and it may be risky but it is there. What impresses me about their likelihood of success is what they did with office equipment (beginning with paper) over the last sixty years. Office Equipment was one of my father's businesses. Many of the brands they bought were my father's stock-in-trade. I watched it happen, up close and later from the sidelines. Everyone discounted their products and chances way back then, too.

Do not be surprised if Pentax is not the last acquisition Ricoh makes in this business. Do not assume they'll need to purchase components forever.

[luftfluss]

You know for a fact Canon's camera division was profitable, without posting revenue transfers from related divisions to the top line? (From another post - you're sure Nikon's camera operations were profitable and that the reported profits didn't come from Nikon Precision?)

I don't know the specifics, other than the Canon 2013 financials reported profitability. Do you know for a fact that Canon's camera division was unprofitable, per your previous statement? I don't know how granular Canon's photo-related structure is, so perhaps we should be saying "camera divisions".

Does Sony manufacture dSLR's using various sensors as well as other cameras? Does Sony present itself to be a full-line camera manufacturer? They are all three large, high-volume, low-margin consumer product (with B2B business product divisions) enterprises.

The fact that other camera mfr's source parts from Sony makes them a bit different, IMO. Its fine with me if you don't agree with that.

That is their business model. Ricoh's consumer product division apparently is intentionally, by design, structured differently.As I recall the statement, they say there is room for a third full-line camera manufacturer in the market - an alternative to Canon and Sony - and it can be Pentax over the intermediate term. I have always maintained the entire business plan of Ricoh is a work currently in progress with a much longer time horizon for measured success than we on this Forum consider for our needs. Our time horizon is something like 'until the next lens'. Ricoh's is 5 - 7 - 10 years, of which really only two have elapsed.

Some of us will be dead by then, lol.

So many are quick to dismiss Ricoh because for twenty years Asahi/Pentax/Hoya has been a slow motion failure in progress. We're extending the past into the future without considering the possibility that Ricoh has a strategy to change the company.

Honestly, I don't think many people here have dismissed Ricoh. Sure, there's some impatience, and some of that is residual from the pre-Ricoh days. I did recently quote one of your previous sigs, "Ricoh has a plan and you will be happy."

[Pål Jensen]

That's Henry Ford's "if I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said a faster horse." I'm not disagreeing that the philosophy, but it doesn't seem like anybody here is addressing: Who is Ricoh's target customer and what are their needs? Is it pros looking to replace Canikon gear, or maybe have a backup camera? Or is it advanced enthusiasts in different segments, from the dedicated Hipstergrammers, to the photo geeks (e.g., us). Knowing who they're targeting with the "niche(s)" they're trying to create might help make sense of things, but I don't know who that is. Does anybody?

It seem that Pentax plan is to keep their core users happy and attact new users from cell phone and P&S owners; ie people who have not owned a Nikon or a Canon....

[monochrome]

I don't know the specifics, other than the Canon 2013 financials reported profitability. Do you know for a fact that Canon's camera division was unprofitable, per your previous statement? I don't know how granular Canon's photo-related structure is, so perhaps we should be saying "camera divisions".

- Not right now but I'm looking Monday when the servers are available. Not sure I can find out - not sure I have access.

The fact that other camera mfr's source parts from Sony makes them a bit different, IMO. Its fine with me if you don't agree with that.

I do agree. In fact, I think Ricoh will acquire some of its own capabilities eventually

Some of us will be dead by then, lol.

Yep - so will most of current Ricoh leadership. That's why it is hard for us to imagine and for any company to do it.

Honestly, I don't think many people here have dismissed Ricoh. Sure, there's some impatience, and some of that is residual from the pre-Ricoh days. I did recently quote one of your previous sigs, "Ricoh has a plan and you will be happy."

Heh. I saw that - or at least a partial quote (Ricoh has a Plan, but . . . . .) [EDIT - Replied!] I stopped using that sig tag. It upset too many people. So far I haven't used 'See? Told 'Ya' but that might be coming.

I actually don't necessarily insist the FF will certainly be released any time soon. nor that I know what their plan is or what the lens roadmap is. My objection is to the howls of derision when it appears, this time, that the tone has changed.

Discussion such as you seem to do is fine - others, not so much. Unfortunately I swallow the bait.

[Mistral75]

The new lenses are clearly FF lenses. They have optical stabilization. Both these features are pointless if it was for APS only.....
I said at the release of the first 645 lens with optical stabilization that Pentax would surely make an FF camera with optical stabilization. It is highly unlikely unlikely that Pentax would develop this technology only for use in the 645 line....

What makes you so affirmative?

Common sense
...and the fact that I have seen the construction plan of the 70-200/2.8 and it has definitely correcting elements for stabilization. And there's also the button on the lens body. Compare with stabilized 645 lenses....[COLOR="Silver"]

(...)

If you do have seen the construction plan of a lens that Ricoh themselves say is "under engineering", I surrender, you are very well informed and this lens has SR.

Otherwise, I cannot agree with you: common sense and the comparison with stabilized 645 lenses suggest the two switches on the lens body correspond to the AF/MF switch and focus limiter switch:

- there are nine 70-200mm lenses currently proposed by OEMs: four by Canon (f/2,8 and f/4, with and without IS), two by Nikon (f/2.8 and f/4) and three by Sony (f/2.8 and f/4 in A mount and f/4 in E mount). All of them are equipped with a focus limiter; why would Ricoh do differently?

- on stabilized 645 lenses, the AF/MF switch and the SR on/off switch are far apart, separated by the distance scale window;

- whilst on DA 560 f/5.6 the AF/MF switch and focus limiter switch are organized in the exact same way as the two switches on the mock-ups shown at Photokina.

[Rondec]

I also don't understand why everybody believes without question that these lenses are FF capable. How could anyone possibly know this? All we have is an unmarked, unlabeled, and untested (by you) lens in a glass display at a trade show? All anyone can really say is that it "looks like it will be" FF capable.

I don't doubt something is churning at Pentax/Ricoh, but I agree that guys on both sides are saying things that can't possibly be known.

It just wouldn't make much sense to have lens with a focal length of 70-200 for APS-C. Ricoh has not identified it as APS-C only or "DA lens," which they have typically done when lenses were for APS-C only. An odd omission if it doesn't mean something more./

[Pål Jensen]

If you do have seen the construction plan of a lens that Ricoh themselves say is "under engineering", I surrender, you are very well informed and this lens has SR.

Otherwise, I cannot agree with you: common sense and the comparison with stabilized 645 lenses suggest the two switches on the lens body correspond to the AF/MF switch and focus limiter switch:

- there are nine 70-200mm lenses currently proposed by OEMs: four by Canon (f/2,8 and f/4, with and without IS), two by Nikon (f/2.8 and f/4) and three by Sony (f/2.8 and f/4 in A mount and f/4 in E mount). All of them are equipped with a focus limiter; why would Ricoh do differently?

- on stabilized 645 lenses, the AF/MF switch and the SR on/off switch are far apart, separated by the distance scale window;

- whilst on DA 560 f/5.6 the AF/MF switch and focus limiter switch are organized in the exact same way as the two switches on the mock-ups shown at Photokina.

1) The patent for the 70-200/2.8 has been published.
2) The prototypes have three switches. (http://news.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/rim_info/3_telephotozoomlens_photokina2014.jpg)

[Zygonyx]

@Pal and Mistral :
It is sincerely hoped that Pentax's FF will have IBIS, unless they will hardly be able to differentiate the new product-line from the rest of the market....
Of course IBIS doesn't exclude tele-lens stabilisation.

[monochrome]

1) The patent for the 70-200/2.8 has been published.
2) The prototypes have three switches.

asahi man didn't say it is IS. Didn't say it isn't IS either, but he was pretty specific.

HD DFA* 70-200 / 2,8 ED AL (IF) SDM not the current SDM Last edited by asahi man; 09-18-14 at 05:17 PM.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/16-pentax-news-rumors/273211-here-you-new...ml#post2947266

[lytrytyr]

Never bought a Sony anything and I intend to maintain that record forever.

You mean you just stole those recent pre-K3 cameras with the Sony sensor?

[Pål Jensen]

The only evidence that I can find to support this claim (excluding circumstantial statements made in interviews) is that these "look like" FF lenses. The roadmap information that you provide is somewhat stronger evidence, but still supposition..

The 70-200/2.8 is patented. It is an FF lens. And as I said in a previous post, there is no meaning making such lenses for a cropped sensor unless (and not even then!) Pentax have no plans for an FF camera in at least a decade. That's the minimum planned lifetime for such a lens....

[monochrome]

OK. Whatever. None of us knows, and if we do know we can't say (publicly). We'll know soon enough. And the Naysayers will always win because those who actually know can't contradict them. One wonders, though, what's the real point of bothering. I mean, is it just fun to stir the pot or is there some other motivation?

It's probably a good idea not to get the Forum's expectations elevated and risk having them dashed once again.

[ogl]

If Pentax makes a 35/2.8, this forum will cry out: "What?? They make a 2.8 lens when we desperately need 1.4 lenses?? Pentax is doooooomed!"

There is FA35/2

[D1N0]

The specific theory as I understand it, is that because these lenses look like FF lenses, then an FF is imminent. Some go so far as to suggest (with some level of confidence) that the camera will be available in 6-9 months.

The only evidence that I can find to support this claim (excluding circumstantial statements made in interviews) is that these "look like" FF lenses. The roadmap information that you provide is somewhat stronger evidence, but still supposition.

To show the fallacy of this argument, see this: "The HD Pentax-DA 560 F5.6 ED AW super-telephoto lens was originally presented by Pentax at the CP+ tradeshow in January, 2012. It was officially announced at Photokina later that year, but it didn't hit the shelves until February 2, 2013." LINK

This lens is long, and has big front element, and looks like a FF lens. Therefore, if the announcement of a lens that looks like an FF lens is the harbinger of an FF camera within 9 months, we should have had one within 9 months of the revelation of its existence, in Oct, 2012.

Now, let's be clear, this does not indicate that I hate Pentax, wish for their failure, or am making any kind of qualititative judgement of you or them. In addition, I would love to have a Pentax FF, given the right feature set. It is also very possible that despite the lack of direct statements by Pentax, that these are indeed harbingers of an imminent FF camera. If so, joy to us all. However, they look like lenses in a glass cabinet, and from my point of view, don't signal much of anything.

The 560 is almost FF. The vignetting can be tackled. If you cannot deduce from road maps and physical lenses, then you might as well say: Well those might be big ass dark thunder clouds, but I am not wet yet so it probably ain't gonna rain.