[Pål Jensen]

I wish Pentax can produce very good body design for the future FF system. Just food for thought: Coffee Time: Form vs Function vs Intention ? Minimally Minimal

Food for thought? It is nonsense.
The K-5 is not plastic but magnesium alloy. Chrome color is no more retro than black. We had black SLR's in the 50's......

[afan137]

"One of the really outrageous examples is the Pentax K-5. There isn’t really anything fundamentally bad about the camera. It’s just a vanilla camera. But then Pentax decided to produce this limited edition version with a silver paint finish to make it look more retro. This is wrong on so many levels. Silver paint on a plastic camera just so it can look like a film camera that it isn’t."

The K5 is "vanilla" and "plastic"? If that's food for thought, my brain is vomiting!

I know that part was absolutely wrong. I think the author was clueless about Pentax camera. I even wrote email telling him (long ago) that K-5 is nothing but Mg alloys. Okay that is not the point I am going to talk about. My intention to throw that link was that many camera manufactures going retro nowadays. Fuji, and Olympus, are the example. Taken from that article which I agree "I hold the belief that we must always move forward by reflecting and learning from history. We must however not simply imitate history like the OM-D

Allright, now look, Pentax is the only company who dare to introduce camera such as K-01, Q-S1, WG-M1, and K-S1. I truly appreciated the look of those cameras. Q-S1 looks retro, but it looks modern also. During the Photokina, which company gets the most attention?. I think Leica and Samsung. Leica T and X are just incredible for their design factor.

I am kind of person who value the look first, and than the spec sheets come the second. On the other hand, Samsung introduced NX-1 with incredible specs, and the look is also v nice. From here, how Pentax can be really successful to make a comeback in fullframe system ? I hope Pentax will bring two fullframe camera bodies next year. First body for hardcore pentaxians who value specs above everything, and the second body for something innovative design that can be modern-retro and mirrorless.

[MD Optofonik]

It's one image. I combined the 4 badges.

Sneaky. Veeery sneaky.

Can that be done in GIMP?

[boriscleto]

Sneaky. Veeery sneaky.

Can that be done in GIMP?

I did it in Pixelmator, but I'm sure it can be done in GIMP.

[Aristophanes]

DFA 100mm Macro WR is optically identical to DFA 100mm Macro. DFA 50mm Macro and DFA 100mm Macro were launched in 2004. These lenses had then to be used both on digital bodies (the first Pentax DSLR , the *istD, was launched in 2003) and film bodies, hence the need for their image circle to cover the 24x36 format.

Besides, the optical formulas of DFA 50mm Macro and DFA 100mm Macro were quasi-identical to those of F 50 mm f/2.8 Macro (1988) and F 100mm f/2.8 Macro (1987): they were 24x36 lenses per nature if not per destination.

What's your point? That Pentaxwill not put out a long tele-zoom before FF bodies are ready because they only do so on lenses with existing optical formulas?

The long tele-zoom is overdue regardless of APS-C or FF. It's been the most glaring oversight in the lens array for about a decade.

[Fat Albert]

This is very true. No. real new development or technological braketrue from any manufactuar! The industrie is in dispair, sales are plumming, from 125 milion sales with the previous photokina down to less then 40 million this year.

Well done Ron!

[MD Optofonik]

Glad to see someone put out am MX-2. To bad it wasn't Pentax.

[thibs]

What's your point? That Pentaxwill not put out a long tele-zoom before FF bodies are ready because they only do so on lenses with existing optical formulas?

The long tele-zoom is overdue regardless of APS-C or FF. It's been the most glaring oversight in the lens array for about a decade.

No, he means that they can't (marketingly I might say) announce a DFA lens before an FF cam and they would be completely stupid to announce a tel as a DA lens right now if they'll introduce the FF 6 months later. Really not obvious? C'mon !

---------- Post added 22-09-14 at 18:34 ----------

Glad to see someone put out am MX-2. To bad it wasn't Pentax.

Mmm maybe

---------- Post added 22-09-14 at 18:37 ----------

Yes, this might be the only real reason why the prototype lenses didn't show any markings. Not because they're unfinished, but because of marketing tactics. Only leaves me with the question: Then why show them at all?

Spin. Us. Foolish enough to get excited and forget about jumping ship.
Frankly, I think we will be shocked. Badly.
Including by the intro price.
Including the lenses and the body.

You (I mean people on this forum) thought Pentax gear were expensive? Think again

[Wired]

The question is... what can we expect these to cost?

70-200mm f2.8, 35mm format? I bet you at least $1800, and only if SR is still in camera. if SR is to become lens based, $2000 easily. Could they pull a rabit out of their had and mark them to be highly competitive as say...Tamron's offering? Doubtful. In my mind the reason why Tamron and Sigma can offer their lenses so much cheaper than the first party ones are because they are selling them in multiple mounts. So they can split R&D between Nikon and Canon instead of Canon developing only for Canon. Same to be said for Pentax. Unless they turn around a repurpose the Tamron/Tokina zooms for use to stay competitive, and I dont' think there is anything wrong with that! The Tamron and Tokina lenses (16-35 f4 from Tokina is bloody amazing) have proven to be fantastic, so why not licence those designs to offer your first party clients an amazing lens for a competiive price to sway them from the Canikon models. They did it before. The Fisheye was a great lens, but not one that would draw people over...

Lets say you could do:
35mm Pentax DSLR : $2500
DFA* 70-200mm f2.8 - $1800
DFA* 24-70mm f2.8 - $1200
DFA* 55mm f1.4 - $700
DFA 50mm f1.8 - $250
DFA 70-200 f4 - $1000
DFA 24-105 f4 -$800

You would save hundreds over the compeition. Granted... our flash system is lacking compared to the competition, and our SDM motors are painfuly slow in the APSC lineup. So I'm hoping for advancements there personally.

Like others I don't know what everyone was expecting for Photokina.... The camera and annoucnement I was most disapointed with was the Nikon D750....which for that matter... Nikon user forums are just as negative about their company as Pentax are. Me... I'm happy with what I got. I don't really need anything more...besides full i-TTL wireless triggers with exposure compensation abilities fromt he transmitter that could also sync/control studio strobes and be fully universal.

[jatrax]

70-200mm f2.8, 35mm format? I bet you at least $1800, and only if SR is still in camera. if SR is to become lens based, $2000 easily.

Canon 70-200 f/2.8 = $2,299
Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 = $2,396
B&H prices.
That's the mark. Anything under that will be a surprise. Ricoh is not going to price the lens at Tamron or Sigma level, it will be same as other first party offerings.

[Joel B]

You know what this means?

Yeah, more pitchforks and torches!
Maybe telling em that Pentax is actually gaining market share will help?... Nope!

[Wired]

Canon 70-200 f/2.8 = $2,299
Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 = $2,396
B&H prices.
That's the mark. Anything under that will be a surprise. Ricoh is not going to price the lens at Tamron or Sigma level, it will be same as other first party offerings.

It will be cheaper than Nikon or Canon versions if IS is in camera. It would only be logical. they could gain tens of customers with the premise of inbody stabalized 35mm format DSLR. Every lens stabalized, save money on future lenses by not having to spend money on IS versions. Thats my theory. Thats why I think more int he $1800 range. Max $2000. You can't ask $2400 for a lens that has technically less features than the competition from a brand thats not as well known.

[Aristophanes]

DFA 100mm Macro WR is optically identical to DFA 100mm Macro. DFA 50mm Macro and DFA 100mm Macro were launched in 2004. These lenses had then to be used both on digital bodies (the first Pentax DSLR , the *istD, was launched in 2003) and film bodies, hence the need for their image circle to cover the 24x36 format.

Besides, the optical formulas of DFA 50mm Macro and DFA 100mm Macro were quasi-identical to those of F 50 mm f/2.8 Macro (1988) and F 100mm f/2.8 Macro (1987): they were 24x36 lenses per nature if not per destination.

It will be cheaper than Nikon or Canon versions if IS is in camera. It would only be logical. they could gain tens of customers with the premise of inbody stabalized 35mm format DSLR. Every lens stabalized, save money on future lenses by not having to spend money on IS versions. Thats my theory. Thats why I think more int he $1800 range. Max $2000. You can't ask $2400 for a lens that has technically less features than the competition from a brand thats not as well known.

I agree. The only way Pentax can make a go of it is to do what Ricoh is known for: compete on price.

[Mistral75]

Canon 70-200 f/2.8 = $2,299
Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 = $2,396
B&H prices.
That's the mark. Anything under that will be a surprise. Ricoh is not going to price the lens at Tamron or Sigma level, it will be same as other first party offerings.

It will be cheaper than Nikon or Canon versions if IS is in camera. It would only be logical. they could gain tens of customers with the premise of inbody stabalized 35mm format DSLR. Every lens stabalized, save money on future lenses by not having to spend money on IS versions. Thats my theory. Thats why I think more int he $1800 range. Max $2000. You can't ask $2400 for a lens that has technically less features than the competition from a brand thats not as well known.

(Unstabilised) Sony 70-200mm f/2.8 G SSM II: $2,998. B&H price.

[Zygonyx]

Huh...
I think i will keep my good old and cheap (USD 450) Tokina ATX Pro 80-200/2.8