[normhead]

I guess for many the FA limited are just the fad of an era. Like a 2000 Ford F-150 or something. They want a new one every year. They always want the latest.

The guy who buys an FA ltd. is not buying something that is old in terms of usefulness. They're buying something that has turned back all challengers. The DA 70, the DA 35, the DA 40, all challengers to the FA ltd, and none of them as appealing. The simple fact is, current lens design is devoid of soul. Technical, sterile looking representations for the most part. When computers took over it was apparently fairly easy to design for resolution so every one did that, At this point a high resolution edge to edge sharp lens is cheap and easy to produce. At some point lens designers will have to go back and find the formula for whatever is was that makes the 31 and 77 so special, and try and build that. If they had succeeded to date those lenses wold be historical notes in Pentax's history. Instead, people like me are alway trying to figure out how to squeeze one into our budget. The FA ltd don't exist because of some quirk of Pentax management. They exist because of what they bring to the table, and the people like me, who don't want to buy those lenses, but at some point you just have to, because of what they bring to the table.

But, that being said, there's a lot of resolution freaks who are analyzing the numbers and can't even imagine what that is. They just see old lenses and they have no idea why they sell. Jun Hirakawa said in the patent for the 77, designed for the way people take pictures, not for the test charts. Unfortunately there are a lot of designers out there today who don't even know what the design parameters he was using are. And you can bet, he's not going to tell.

[Nicolas06]

But, that being said, there's a lot of resolution freaks who are analyzing the numbers and can't even imagine what that is. They just see old lenses and they have no idea why they sell. Jun Hirakawa said in the patent for the 77, designed for the way people take pictures, not for the test charts. Unfortunately there are a lot of designers out there today who don't even know what the design parameters he was using are. And you can bet, he's not going to tell.

Test charts are a tool, to check if a sample match the specifications for example. But unfortunally there a business to make lenses reviews and to be paid by advertisement with a good share of photographic gear ads. Not only you can't really be 100% objective when your revenue depends of the manufacturer of the gear you evaluate, but this is small business.

This is not a serious review where say you'll have 20-30 photographers with various background test the thing for a few months with a few hundred sample shots from maybe 10 thousand taken. Several camera for lenses, many lenses for a camera... There no field report of every feature or shoting condition and for formal tests there almost only sharpness.

I mean, you need to make money and so to spend less than advertisement provide and for people to come back often, you need to have almost all gear available reviewed. Photozone for example look to be a one man show with the idea that the website give him salary. if he is making few thousands a months on average, he can't spend 50000$ on each review. He likely can't afford than to spend 1-2 day of work for each thing he test and he must industrialize like testing 2-3 lens on the same sessions/outing.

That's funny already how photozone or say ephotozine give few field shot and how the most difference there in the shot is not the gear but basically the weather.

When serious people want to buy gear, they try to figure what is best. What their choice is? Price comparator. Manufacturer propagnanda, forum where valuable information is hidden among troll posts and reviews websites.

Lenses like FAltd only get discovered by fanatics of the brand, then it is mostly by word of mouth that by spending lot of time discussing gear you'll understand that there truely something interresting there...

If you are a pro, time is money, and it may not be worth the time to spend days on forums and on the net to try to outrun say Canon L lenses.

[KDAFA]

I guess for many the FA limited are just the fad of an era. Like a 2000 Ford F-150 or something. They want a new one every year. They always want the latest.

The guy who buys an FA ltd. is not buying something that is old in terms of usefulness. They're buying something that has turned back all challengers. The DA 70, the DA 35, the DA 40, all challengers to the FA ltd, and none of them as appealing. The simple fact is, current lens design is devoid of soul. Technical, sterile looking representations for the most part. When computers took over it was apparently fairly easy to design for resolution so every one did that, At this point a high resolution edge to edge sharp lens is cheap and easy to produce. At some point lens designers will have to go back and find the formula for whatever is was that makes the 31 and 77 so special, and try and build that. If they had succeeded to date those lenses wold be historical notes in Pentax's history. Instead, people like me are alway trying to figure out how to squeeze one into our budget. The FA ltd don't exist because of some quirk of Pentax management. They exist because of what they bring to the table, and the people like me, who don't want to buy those lenses, but at some point you just have to, because of what they bring to the table.

But, that being said, there's a lot of resolution freaks who are analyzing the numbers and can't even imagine what that is. They just see old lenses and they have no idea why they sell. Jun Hirakawa said in the patent for the 77, designed for the way people take pictures, not for the test charts. Unfortunately there are a lot of designers out there today who don't even know what the design parameters he was using are. And you can bet, he's not going to tell.

+1, and not forgetting the FA43.

Truly, there is so, so much more to these three legends than merely "unusual focal lengths".

Moreover, test charts just can't tell the story here. Not easy to measure "soul".

[Mikesul]

I guess for many the FA limited are just the fad of an era. Like a 2000 Ford F-150 or something. They want a new one every year. They always want the latest.

The guy who buys an FA ltd. is not buying something that is old in terms of usefulness. They're buying something that has turned back all challengers. The DA 70, the DA 35, the DA 40, all challengers to the FA ltd, and none of them as appealing. The simple fact is, current lens design is devoid of soul. Technical, sterile looking representations for the most part. When computers took over it was apparently fairly easy to design for resolution so every one did that, At this point a high resolution edge to edge sharp lens is cheap and easy to produce. At some point lens designers will have to go back and find the formula for whatever is was that makes the 31 and 77 so special, and try and build that. If they had succeeded to date those lenses wold be historical notes in Pentax's history. Instead, people like me are alway trying to figure out how to squeeze one into our budget. The FA ltd don't exist because of some quirk of Pentax management. They exist because of what they bring to the table, and the people like me, who don't want to buy those lenses, but at some point you just have to, because of what they bring to the table.

But, that being said, there's a lot of resolution freaks who are analyzing the numbers and can't even imagine what that is. They just see old lenses and they have no idea why they sell. Jun Hirakawa said in the patent for the 77, designed for the way people take pictures, not for the test charts. Unfortunately there are a lot of designers out there today who don't even know what the design parameters he was using are. And you can bet, he's not going to tell.

Well said, Norm. Thanks!

[Nicolas06]

+1, and not forgetting the FA43.

Truly, there is so, so much more to these three legends than merely "unusual focal lengths".

Moreover, test charts just can't tell the story here. Not easy to measure "soul".

And test charts say the FA31 and FA77 are great while the FA43 is great... stopped down. Even by test chart reviews, the FAltd are great. You get best of both worlds.

[D1N0]

Interview is now on the FP:
2016 CP+ Pentax Interview - CP+ 2016 | PentaxForums.com

[vimeto]

So the K-1 is on B&H for $1796.95USD, and the Nikon D750 on B&H is $1996.95USD.

Then in Australia the Pentax K-1 has started out at $3188AUD, next to the Nikon D810 retail price of $3191AUD.

Then Pentax/Ricoh Australia dropped the price to $2899AUD, and the Nikon D750 retails for $2297AUD in Australia.

Can someone explain why a Pentax K-1 is cheaper than a Nikon D750 in the US, but in Australia the K-1 is $602 more expensive than a Nikon D750.

Please don't answer by implying that I'm poor and can't afford one, or there's the pre-order price versus the retail price yadda yadda yadda. Or the US market is the premier market with millions of people in it, the Euro zone is similar in size, and the Asian market might be too.

(Its not a trick question, what I think is the answer will be written below)

I actually had no interest in getting a K-1, and have been really happy with my K-3. When I saw the US price I was expecting something similar here in Australia, and I thought maybe I'll give it a go. But no, they jacked up the price into the clouds here in Australia.

Its funny how everyone was ticked off how Pentax never released a full frame camera etc etc. They were ticked off how they haven't got an upgrade path, and some of them were really outraged at that, and shook their fists at Pentax.

The full frame is here, and I might be one of the first to be shaking my fist at Pentax Australia. I mean really, I never thought I'd use this expression, but Pentax is really doomed here in Australia. At least Pentax USA has given customers a real good incentive to buy a K-1 over a D750, and Pentax might gain a real foot hold in the US. But in Australia, there's no chance ....... the cameras are gone from the shelves, and most camera stores can't even be bothered to stock Pentax.

The only piece of advertising I've seen from Pentax was an infotainment commercial for the Pentax K-50 a few weeks ago. I sat there and watched the whole half hour of it for fun. I was actually excited to see Pentax advertised on TV ! I'm guessing that CRK was over-stocked on K- 50's, (I think they sold 3 during the commercial). Normally Nikon does the infotainment on that channel.

The question again: Why is the K-1 $602AUD more expensive than a Nikon D750 in Australia, while in the US, the K-1 is cheaper than a Nikon D750 ?

(Answer = Rip-off)

Pentax is Doomed ! (now I'M one of those "Pentax is doomed" caption writers)

The last time I checked Australia it's just plain expensive. Taxes, Housing, food, electronics. Everything is more expensive over there. When the PS4 came out, wasn't it like $100 dollars more, over in Australia. The d750 is cheaper because is an older body, and its not selling as well as nikon wants it to. It's as simple as that.

Here is a report I read before about Australians paying more for IT products

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/life/personal-technology/australians-pay-50-...-1226687429151

---

Last edited by vimeto; 02-27-2016 at 08:05 AM.

[Parallax]

+1, and not forgetting the FA43.

Truly, there is so, so much more to these three legends than merely "unusual focal lengths".

Moreover, test charts just can't tell the story here. Not easy to measure "soul".

We need a new metric. Line widths per picture height is good, but we need something more.
People used to argue about which peppers were hotter than which; but we now have Scoville Heat Units. A standardized quantifier.
We need something similar for lenses as an adjunct to LW/PH. We need a quantifiable, standardized Pixie Dust Unit.True lens performance could then be expressed as LW/PH x PDUs.

[Rupert]

We need a quantifiable, standardized Pixie Dust Unit.True lens performance could then be expressed as LW/PH x PDUs.

That's kind of corny....but Otis liked it! Maybe test using "nut resolution" as a standard? That's kind of corny too......but Otis still liked it!


Regards!

Note to wandering Mods, bored and lookin' for some purpose in their duties.......

This is the last squirrel post to be made here, they have no interest in hijacking this thread, they are busy elsewhere at the moment anyhow. They realize this is a serious thread, like all K1 threads, and intend on showing the utmost respect and avoidance of squirrel humor.

[One3rdEV]

When I was shopping for my first DSLR in 2012, my default position was for Nikon due to its known professional system features (e.g. flash system). But admittedly I was quite drawn to the K-5 for its Pentax tuned sensor IQ, ergonomic handling, and weather sealing.

In the end I decided to let the 'available lens selection' speak for the final decision. Go figure! - this is completely the OPPOSITE of how most others view the situation! 'Lens selection' to me meant which company offered lenses that more consistently stood out as having a unique rendering IQ. So I decided to see if 'results' could speak, and if they could I would let them make the final decision for me.

I then searched the web looking for image samples, and in particular samples which had identification of the lens associated with it. I saw lots of excellent images taken with technically near-perfect lenses (e.g. edge-to-edge sharpness) produced by the likes of Nikon and Canon. But after reviewing tons of images over a period of time I started to observe a subtle but reoccurring trend- a very few select lenses displayed a subtle yet unique enough rendering that a majority of their images when encountered could be reliably predicted regarding the particular lens used. Interestingly, all of these select few lenses ended up being produced by Pentax. The most consistent of which were the FA 77 ltd and DA* 55 ltd.

Needless to say- I ended up choosing Pentax over Nikon/Canon. And given Pentax's past history of producing some unique rendering glass, I find their system has to date offered a 'genuinely real' choice in lens selection and characteristics.

[Parallax]

That's kind of corny....

Congratulations, Jim!
Corn cobs make a pretty good test targets, so after 10 years and nearly twenty thousand posts, you finally posted a picture that is remotely relevant to the thread.

[Rupert]

so after 10 years and nearly twenty thousand posts, you finally posted a picture that is remotely relevant to the thread.

My apology, it must have been a freak accident in my head. I've been having some headaches lately, and have been thinking my brain may be growing. Mrs Rupert assures me that is nonsense, but I haven't lost my keys or glasses in weeks....so there may be a chance.....?

Regards!

[D1N0]

Barney also likes the K-1:

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

[monochrome]

Test charts are a tool, to check if a sample match the specifications for example. But unfortunally there a business to make lenses reviews and to be paid by advertisement with a good share of photographic gear ads. Not only you can't really be 100% objective when your revenue depends of the manufacturer of the gear you evaluate, but this is small business.

This is not a serious review where say you'll have 20-30 photographers with various background test the thing for a few months with a few hundred sample shots from maybe 10 thousand taken. Several camera for lenses, many lenses for a camera... There no field report of every feature or shoting condition and for formal tests there almost only sharpness.

I mean, you need to make money and so to spend less than advertisement provide and for people to come back often, you need to have almost all gear available reviewed. Photozone for example look to be a one man show with the idea that the website give him salary. if he is making few thousands a months on average, he can't spend 50000$ on each review. He likely can't afford than to spend 1-2 day of work for each thing he test and he must industrialize like testing 2-3 lens on the same sessions/outing.

That's funny already how photozone or say ephotozine give few field shot and how the most difference there in the shot is not the gear but basically the weather.

When serious people want to buy gear, they try to figure what is best. What their choice is? Price comparator. Manufacturer propagnanda, forum where valuable information is hidden among troll posts and reviews websites.

Lenses like FAltd only get discovered by fanatics of the brand, then it is mostly by word of mouth that by spending lot of time discussing gear you'll understand that there truely something interresting there...

If you are a pro, time is money, and it may not be worth the time to spend days on forums and on the net to try to outrun say Canon L lenses.

So how is today any different from when a small number of print magazines did the reviews, and used lens dealers sent mimeographed 'catalogs' in the mail?

[monochrome]

And a removed aperture ring...

In lens or screwdriver? What's the bound?