[mee]

+1, the signal you send to them is to change the mount for FF!

Tough spot in which for them to be. I mean if they change the mount then they risk losing customers entirely. If I have to rebuy camera body AND all lenses, then I'm looking at the bigger picture and seeing what Canon, Nikon, and Sony have to offer. So the camera and lenses would have to be MUCH nicer, or priced accordingly. At which point they lose profits.

If they do keep the same mount, then according to 'Aristophanes', they also lose profits. They're hosed either way.

[thibs]

you don't think what? the fact is that the sigma art lenses are getting rave reviews, and the 18-35 is one of the landmark lenses of the past decade. it has won awards. can you name the last time Pentax released a lens as highly regarded as the sigma art 50 or the 18-35? I certainly cannot. I'm pretty sure it wasnt the Limited zoom.

OK, I will take an example which is... well not very good but it kinda illustrate my point pretty well.
See tha Hollywood self congratulations awards they give themselves every year?
See the sort of movies/series getting those ?
Right, getting awards is not difficult if that's your aim and you got the money.
It won't change the fact that most Hollywood are crap or approaching crap. And this is nothing to do with European vs American thing. Thankful there's Sundance.

Now it also applies to Pentax and certainly doesn't excuse a lot of things. But Pentax never (so far) designed lenses to please benchmarks and sharpness gurus. It doesn't make Sigma lenses bad, certainly not.
But judging the superiority of glass 'cos the maker get awards or reviews is, IMO, very short-sighted (and the opposite is true too).

[monochrome]

Now it also applies to Pentax and certainly doesn't excuse a lot of things. But Pentax never (so far) designed lenses to please benchmarks and sharpness gurus. It doesn't make Sigma lenses bad, certainly not. But judging the superiority of glass 'cos the maker get awards or reviews is, IMO, very short-sighted (and the opposite is true too).

There was a story going around when the K-7 was released that Hoya's executive in charge of Pentax (the nephew of the Hoya Chairman, I think) told Pentax to design lenses that would win on the testing websites. As the story went, the optical engineers protested this assignment, argued, dragged their feet and all manner of passive-aggressive refusal since making those lenses would totally change the character of Pentax optics.

Shortly thereafter Pentax had many fewer optical engineers, including a rather famous one.

[fuent104]

OK, I will take an example which is... well not very good but it kinda illustrate my point pretty well.
See tha Hollywood self congratulations awards they give themselves every year?
See the sort of movies/series getting those ?
Right, getting awards is not difficult if that's your aim and you got the money.
It won't change the fact that most Hollywood are crap or approaching crap. And this is nothing to do with European vs American thing. Thankful there's Sundance.

Now it also applies to Pentax and certainly doesn't excuse a lot of things. But Pentax never (so far) designed lenses to please benchmarks and sharpness gurus. It doesn't make Sigma lenses bad, certainly not.
But judging the superiority of glass 'cos the maker get awards or reviews is, IMO, very short-sighted (and the opposite is true too).

that is not really an accurate analogy. most Hollywood awards are for individual crafts within films, such as costume design or cinematography: they are not dependent on the overall quality of the story.

this is beside my original point. I never said ricoh should be making the lenses Sigma is making. I said it is arrogant to presume (and tell others as though you are speaking factually) that Ricoh is not capable of doing things because r&d is prohibitively expensive (unless one has inside information about Ricoh's r&d budgets). as I Sayyid before, whether Ricoh chooses to do things like designing new mounts is up to them.

[Nicolas06]

that is not really an accurate analogy. most Hollywood awards are for individual crafts within films, such as costume design or cinematography: they are not dependent on the overall quality of the story.

Sharpness in corners at f/1.4 is as related to making great pictures as to the crafting of clothes is related to great movies.

[monochrome]

I said it is arrogant to presume (and tell others as though you are speaking factually) that Ricoh is not capable of doing things because r&d is prohibitively expensive

What makes it a challenge for Ricoh to produce lenses similar to those Sigma is producing - which is not to say everyone prefers the style of image result that comes out of a Sigma lens - is that Ricoh would need to start from scratch, leaving all of their historical engineering, culture, philosophy and (to a degree) patents behind.

I presume lenses are not engineered from scratch, but build upon an embedded catalog of engineering proofs, the cost of which was paid for years and even decades ago. In some cases lens design is dependent on the experience and brilliance of a designer, who can be compared to a CAD catalog stored in his head. That's why the loss of Hirakawa Jun was so meaningful to us.

[bossa]

I was under the impression that Ricoh was going to represent the "hi-tech" aspect of the photography department but it appears the new Pentax "S" line of products will now do this. I am wondering where this could lead - I'm cynical enough to imagine the line as just a way for R&D to pay for itself in the short term. I suppose it's possible a new long term line of lenses could grow from something here but it wouldn't happen right away.

The interview from PK2014 let on that the DA* line would be updated along with the FA LTD's. It can't be too far away or they'd never have mentioned it. I expect Ricoh to update the coatings on the FA line and the motors in the DA* as well. I'd consider buying a new 50-135 if they fixed the SDM issues.

[Wired]

People buy Nikon FF to get the 14-24.

Then they buy to get the fast, long zooms.

Everything in between is replicated elsewhere and is where APS-C competes.

I bought my Nikon for the 135mm f2.0 DC. But who's keeping score

[formercanuck]

Any idea about wide / standard FF zooms? I suspect they will take a while.

[lytrytyr]

Any idea about wide / standard FF zooms? I suspect they will take a while.

The September 2014 roadmap, which they're still showing on the Ricoh mother ship,
has a 14-25mm (or thereabouts) "DA wide zoom".

It would be interesting to see it morph into a D-FA lens
that could be a Nikon 14-24/2.8 rival,
although we might still want a smaller crop version.

[Digitalis]

The September 2014 roadmap, which they're still showing on the Ricoh mother ship, has a 14-25mm (or thereabouts) "DA wide zoom".

I'm betting this will be a Tamron 15-24mm f/2.8 rebadge job with styling À la pentax. After that, all pentax needs is a 24-70mm f/2.8 and they will be set. the FA limiteds will possibly be expanded, and I'd personally like to see a D-FA*200mm f/4 ED [IF] Macro released.

[reh321]

The September 2014 roadmap, which they're still showing on the Ricoh mother ship,
has a 14-25mm (or thereabouts) "DA wide zoom".

It would be interesting to see it morph into a D-FA lens
that could be a Nikon 14-24/2.8 rival,
although we might still want a smaller crop version.

Why a smaller crop version?
Won't the FF version be usable on a crop camera?

[Ex Finn.]

The crop version would cost and weigh less.

[thibs]

The crop version would cost and weigh less.

a LOT less.

[mythguy9]

There has to be a kit zoom like 28-70 to accompany the new FF