[Kunzite]

Why would he need fact to support this simple logical assertion. Do you provide any fact that "being able to use old lenses on current bodies" scare people away ?

Isn't that a strawman?
It's the other way around - too few modern products are scaring people away. There are people liking their old lenses, but then there are people with no such strings attached, who'd want a modern Pentax.
We're always complaining about AF and video with AF and whatever... that's not solved by sitting still.

As for KAF4, I'd guess the 55-300 RE PLM couldn't be made with a mechanical aperture lever (because of the retracting mechanism).

---------- Post added 09-02-17 at 03:46 PM ----------

But will Pentax/Ricoh Imaging profit more from moving in a direction that may upset current (old school) K mount owners versus pleasing (and thus adding) new owners into the userbase?

That is another one of those risks. I think the 'old guy Pentaxian' is a very small pool (that is sadly shrinking) compared to the ocean of Canikony buyers. So it might not be that bad in the long run for Pentax to move in adopting new technology. Where else are the old Pentaxians going to go? Canon or Nikon? They won't get any better if better is what they perceived Pentax as once offering.

Besides, as monochrome mentioned, One can buy a K-1 and a bunch of vintage lenses NOW so there is no harm to them if the whole system is turned on its head tomorrow.

So this is much ado about nothing for the old style Pentaxian. There is already an abundance of old K mount for sale second hand right now. No waiting.

First, let's assume the K-mount is here to stay (as a DSLR system). It's a safe assumption IMO.
Second, I'd say many of the current K-mount owners are not adverse to progress (under the first assumption), on the contrary. We want fast(er) AF, better AF-C, quiet cameras/lenses, even video with "usable" AF. That can't be done with film-era lenses, even less so with manual focus lenses bought for a penny

Just like you say, these "old school" guys are already well-served (and even if the FA Limiteds would be discontinued, well, they had decades to buy theirs!). Pentax upping their game will have no real negative impact on them.

[kenspo]

Why would he need fact to support this simple logical assertion. Do you provide any fact that "being able to use old lenses on current bodies" scare people away ?

Its my experience while working with this on the daily basis. People think of Pentax as a brand for the old, geeky and nerdy ones. Its a hard job to convince them other wise. So if my experience isnt good enough for you, i dont know how i can show it better.

---------- Post added 02-09-17 at 03:00 PM ----------

I think the 'old guy Pentaxian' is a very small pool (that is sadly shrinking) compared to the ocean of Canikony buyers. So it might not be that bad in the long run for Pentax to move in adopting new technology.

Exactly The new and money strong generation have Pentax pretty low on their wishlist.

[Kunzite]

Kenspo, if I understand correctly this is about a combination of perception and the fact that the lens line was more or less neglected (after 2009 and until Ricoh Imaging started moving things).
This is not an appeal against backwards compatibility.

[kenspo]

Kenspo, if I understand correctly this is about a combination of perception and the fact that the lens line was more or less neglected (after 2009 and until Ricoh Imaging started moving things).
This is not an appeal against backwards compatibility.

Its what Pentax has to offer in total But lense lineup doesn't make it easier to put it that way I know Ricoh has long term plans..Sooo...

And so do i and Ricoh!

[monochrome]

Its my experience while working with this on the daily basis. People think of Pentax as a brand for the old, geeky and nerdy ones. Its a hard job to convince them other wise. So if my experience isnt good enough for you, i dont know how i can show it better.

Recently my son turned down my offer of a free Pentax K-3 and 28~105 to buy a D70, 24~105 (it's an L lens!) and some other stuff. His use case is exclusively video for YouTube to support his business.

He believes Pentax doesn't have the video 'chops' he needs (wrong), and the athletes he shoots wouldn't respect his Pentax gear (it's an L lens!) either (probably right). He did enough research to convince himself he made good choices. He thinks Pentax is for great stills; Sony A7s with a loupe is the hot gear for VLoggers and his gear is a good price compromise.

As kenspo is trying to express, perception matters when selling to 30-45 age group.

[Glorfindelrb]

Its my experience while working with this on the daily basis. People think of Pentax as a brand for the old, geeky and nerdy ones. Its a hard job to convince them other wise. So if my experience isnt good enough for you, i dont know how i can show it better.

Exactly The new and money strong generation have Pentax pretty low on their wishlist.

It wasn't an attack, just pointing that "backward compatibily" could not be the direct cause of your issues. The brand image can but losing the base just to get a younger image would be pretty risky, a new line of product is less risky (and the KP is try to do that without too much investment). I don't feel old yet and Pentax is high on my wishlist (I'm even too young for monochrome target group but not for long).

The lack of video support might be a real issue when selecting a brand with the "maybe I would try to do video" in mind. Even if most will not need more than a simple 1080p (if any) it'll be seen as a limitation. Being able to use old lenses is a good thing for video.

[kenspo]

As kenspo is trying to express, perception matters when selling to 30-45 age group.

Im struggling with almost everyone under age of 40. Everybody else likes Pentax either because they use it or nostalgic reasons

just pointing that "backward compatibily" could not be the direct cause of your issues.

That isnt the main issue..its to package in total..Not appealing to most younger people

[skierd]

I'll mention one thing that people do know modern Pentax for: weather sealing. I've had several people tell me, after learning that I live in Alaska, "Ah, that's why you shoot Pentax! I'd never take my Canon/Nikon out in your weather...". I usually try to add that the star and limited lenses are second to none and have changed a few minds, but the general perception seems to be that Pentax is a system for old men, outdoors types, and cheap bastards (something I believe that this and other internet communities feed with the obsessing over old crappy thrift store glass that wasn't good when it came out. Looking at old slow zooms and FAJ and the like) . Also several who are shocked to learn that Pentax is even still around making DSLR's.

[tvdtvdtvd]

I would be happy to use my old glass adapted to a mirrorless body with a sensible battery life that isn't a Sony.

I'm with you there. I've been burned by Sony more times than by any other company, across multiple platforms, (audio equipment, computers,
online gaming, data storage and audio DRM). No more and never again. Anything before Sony.

[reh321]

Why don't they attract new users easily and not even close to minimise the gap then backwards compatibility is what is slowing them down is my experience. They might please existing Pentax user, but doesn't appeal to new users...

Backwards compatibility is added value and scare no one away....

It wasn't an attack, just pointing that "backward compatibily" could not be the direct cause of your issues....

kenspo did not say that backwards compatibility is scaring away new users; what he did say is that backwards compatibility is retarding progress - those are two different issues. The historic components are mechanical wonders; the new components are basic electronics. Each aspect of backwards compatibility retained means highly-restricted mechanical components must be included, which takes up space and adds weight plus cost to the body/lens. Including these old components puts added constraints on the design, which complicates both the engineering and the construction of the body/lens, thereby retarding the introduction of new features. Building a k-mount lens today is comparable to insisting that a modern automobile have the necessary parts to hitch horses to it in case the driver would rather use horses than gasoline to move the vehicle. Yes, it can be done, but the resulting constraints work against making progress.

[Rondec]

Cannot improve Pentax if we don't admit there are things wrong with Pentax. I think we can all agree we want a healthy Pentax in the future. How 'we' get there is another matter entirely.

That said, I think we all realize Ricoh is going to move as they see fit. And thus the only choice WE have in the matter is with our wallets in either buying what they offer or from another competitor.

But it is still an interesting discussion I think.

Sure. I just think that the problem right now is not the FA limiteds and the DA limiteds, it is the lens gaps between that aren't currently covered by Pentax's lens line up. Once Ricoh covers those gaps, then they can go back and re-do the FA limiteds with new coatings, quick shift and in-lens motors. That said, I own the FA 31 and FA 77 and would be unlikely to update them. They really are excellent lenses, despite all the disparaging remarks on this thread and having silent motors wouldn't really improve them much optically.

A lot of these "issues" with Pentax cameras have to do with video specs and I don't know what would be needed to make Pentax enter the next generation with regard to video, but it doesn't feel like it would be that hard to enable decent video, if they thought it was important.

[tvdtvdtvd]

The Pentax lens catalogue looks pretty ropey to me.

Yes, many people keep droning on about this 'issue', but I have to disagree. Pentax' APS-C lens lineup is quite
complete. Sure, there are a few specialty lenses missing, like a tilt-shift, but otherwise the whole range is covered
from ultra wide angle to extreme telephoto.

Pentax' only just entered the FF market. You can't expect 20 new lenses to appear overnight. Give it time. New
FF zooms have been released and new primes are on the way. Of course, if you're an old fogy like me, (47), and
not singularly impressed by the latest whizzbang, then the current available FF lineup is also already quite robust.
Everything from ultra wide angle, (15-30), to extreme telephoto, (150-450). The only real 'hole' are the DF-A primes,
which we all expect to be seeing very soon. Diversity is on the way. Give it time.

Given the choice of "Release K-1 as soon as possible" or "Release K-1 only when 8, (9, 10, 11+) new FF lenses
are ready for co-release", which would you choose?

[ffking]

Originally posted by mecrox
The Pentax lens catalogue looks pretty ropey to me

Yes, many people keep droning on about this 'issue',

As I said in a previous post - it's a knee jerk reaction

- Pentax has sub-par AF
-Pentax has rubbish video
-Pentax has too few lenses and too third-party lenses

In public perception, what is repeated most often is what is true - the actual reality doesn't matter. As long as people believe those things, they will be what keps Pentax small and niche, and if baggage from the past has to be ditched to move forward, it has to be ditched to move forward.

(and that is an IF - I don't know whether or not the needs of , say, as it's being most mentioned, backwards compatibility does hold Pentax back in terms of AF or video, but they need to make the best cameras they can here and now to have a long term future, imho)

[Glorfindelrb]

...which takes up space and adds weight plus cost to the body/lens. Including these old components puts added constraints on the design, which complicates both the engineering and the construction of the body/lens, thereby retarding the introduction of new features. Building a k-mount lens today is comparable to ...

And my point is (in few words):
- it's not true for lenses (since KAF4)
- it's is true for body but only for screw drive AF and mechanical aperture lever
- it is a necessity up to now as:
--> the lens park is dependant of that (less lenses available would hav been a bad thing)
--> lot of K1 owners were ok to pay for it and wouldn't buy without it

The cost and time to add that in a DSLR body is low as it's well known by Pentax, in a new MILC design it will be different and the issues are:
- Pentax would need to produce new dedicated lenses (or licence an existing mount) to start a new system and they have difficulties to keep up with FF + 645 expectations
- a K to "new mount" adapter would be particularly hard to design if it has to support mechanical aperture and screw-drive AF

So either you want them to abandon DSLR and ok it's retarding it. Or you are ok with Pentax producing DSLR and it's a necessity for them to sell and the cost is not huge.
I am not commenting on the fact that they might have been late to switch to KAF4 and to push in lens motorisation, I look at the current situation.

[aurele]

How will they retain the signature 'small' DA Limited Line while adding all the modern in-lens whizzes - and keep them small?

Well, canon 40/2.8 and 24/2.8 are really small with USM motor in it... just sayin'