[Kunzite]

All right, here's another question for the interview:

At CP+, you presented the D FA* 50mm f/1.4 lens - still in development, with a market launch date "not decided". What (if anything) is holding back the primes on the lens roadmap?
Are they updated with new technologies, like KAF4 and PLM drives? Are you making changes according to the lens survey results?

[Bromberger]

- Sigma is very successfull with lenses that are excellent but huge.
Pentax tradition was always to make excellent and small lenses.
Sigma will not support K mount, but instead it almost seems like you follow the demand for those excellent huge lenses with the new DFA lenses.
So is that how it's going to be now? Compact lenses for Pentax APSC cameras, excellent but huge lenses for their full frame cameras? Or will you also release huge lenses for APSC format or tiny lenses for full frame format?

[x4rd]

Is this how it's going to be: compact lenses for APSC-cameras, excellent but huge lenses for full frame cameras?

I wouldn't mind something like this!

[MJKoski]

Well, having played with almost every FF-system there is, the truth is size = quality. Except in mirrorless game where Leica M and Sony FE mounts have some excellent options. No pain, no gain. No size, no quality in DSLR land.

43mm limited which I bought few months ago has been good example, it is very tiny but quite hard to use properly to get good results (field curvature etc. aberrations). Most pancake lenses have nice IQ, like Canon 40mm STM, but also focus shift which is recipe to disaster. Only really excellent small high IQ lens I have used has been Zeiss Loxia 21mm. Never could afford modern Leica M options.

[ogl]

43mm limited which I bought few months ago has been good example, it is very tiny but quite hard to use properly to get good results (field curvature etc. aberrations)..

FA31 and FA77 are compact and have HQ.

[bobbotron]

Haha, I remember 6 months or more ago, someone on this board posting something along the lines of "I don't think you guys realize how big the new FF lenses will be compared to the existing APS-C lineup". Truth!

[lithedreamer]

Haha, I remember 6 months or more ago, someone on this board posting something along the lines of "I don't think you guys realize how big the new FF lenses will be compared to the existing APS-C lineup". Truth!

I didn't think about all the extra stuff they're putting in these that they aren't putting in to FA glass.

[Vantage-Point]

The issue I think is that the majority of existing Pentax users that took Ricoh's survey said they would rather have more compact, slower lenses (F1.7, F2.0, F2.8) than larger F1.4 versions. In order to attract new users to Pentax they need newer, modern, quiet focusing versions of their legacy lenses as well as missing Full Frame focal lengths (15,20, 24, 28, 135mm, etc.) . They will probably cautiously introduce new large aperture lenses because they want to see if people are willing to buy them. If people start buying them they will add new lenses to the current lens catalog .

[Uluru]

FA31 and FA77 are compact and have HQ.

Son, screwdrive and lack of WR ain't gonna sell anything anymore.
The western movies in which such legendary glass was served in Pentax bars, are very old westerns.

[howieb101]

As far as communication to Ricoh, could you please advise that with slower gains in sensor development they need compelling reasons for people to upgrade.

The KP might have three:
- Small size with quality build;
- Better high iso image quality
- Better AF than previous models

However, these are at the margins for some people and they will sit tight with their older K5, K3 or other model because these marginal gains are not worth it, especially at $US 1,100.

One compelling reason would be vastly improved movie quality. A number of people are hoping and waiting for an improvement in this area before they will upgrade. It would be good if you can communicate this to Ricoh as a number of people have given up waiting and bought a mirrorless body instead. This obviously is Ricoh's loss.

[mee]

The issue I think is that the majority of existing Pentax users that took Ricoh's survey said they would rather have more compact, slower lenses (F1.7, F2.0, F2.8) than larger F1.4 versions. In order to attract new users to Pentax they need newer, modern, quiet focusing versions of their legacy lenses as well as missing Full Frame focal lengths (15,20, 24, 28, 135mm, etc.) . They will probably cautiously introduce new large aperture lenses because they want to see if people are willing to buy them. If people start buying them they will add new lenses to the current lens catalog .

Where are the survey results? I wasn't aware the Ricoh-made survey actually released the results.

I think they are going to be cautious about introducing any and all lenses as they can't afford disasters.

The amount of resources (time and money) it takes to make a single lens is significant. To the point, I suspect, that if they launched a dud it would be quite damaging to RI. It would mean they'd have to R&D another design, further test, and manufacture... and hope they didn't tick off enough vendors who are now stuck with a bunch of smelly rejects (unless RI buys them back). Plus, under warranty, it could become quite costly if the design is faulty and Ricoh is footing the bill for repairs...

Not to mention all the bad PR they'd get..

I think that is why they announced then retreated from the 70-200mm initially. At the last minute, they must have discovered some qualities of the lens that were unappealing and had to address those. Saves trouble down the road to get it right from the start...

---------- Post added 02-22-17 at 10:09 PM ----------

Btw the interview is probably already on going.. so if you were considering asking question, your time is up!

[lithedreamer]

As far as communication to Ricoh, could you please advise that with slower gains in sensor development they need compelling reasons for people to upgrade.

The KP might have three:
- Small size with quality build;
- Better high iso image quality
- Better AF than previous models

However, these are at the margins for some people and they will sit tight with their older K5, K3 or other model because these marginal gains are not worth it, especially at $US 1,100.

One compelling reason would be vastly improved movie quality. A number of people are hoping and waiting for an improvement in this area before they will upgrade. It would be good if you can communicate this to Ricoh as a number of people have given up waiting and bought a mirrorless body instead. This obviously is Ricoh's loss.

Did you see the first impressions article on the KP? The bitrate was bumped slightly.

[howieb101]

The bitrate was bumped slightly.

Yeah, I saw that and it is again a marginal improvement. From 20 MBs to 25Mbs is not groundbreaking.

If they'd gone up to 50Mbs I'd have been more impressed. Lots of cameras currently go to 100MBs.

If they can't up it in firmware on the KP let's hope the K3 III has all the improved video features. We can only hope.

Howie Be

[lithedreamer]

Yeah, I saw that and it is again a marginal improvement. From 20 MBs to 25Mbs is not groundbreaking.

If they'd gone up to 50Mbs I'd have been more impressed. Lots of cameras currently go to 100MBs.

If they can't up it in firmware on the KP let's hope the K3 III has all the improved video features. We can only hope.

Howie Be

To be clear, I believe it was from 18 to 25. Still, I would like to see it shoot up higher.

[richandfleur]

One compelling reason would be vastly improved movie quality. A number of people are hoping and waiting for an improvement in this area before they will upgrade. It would be good if you can communicate this to Ricoh as a number of people have given up waiting and bought a mirrorless body instead. This obviously is Ricoh's loss.

Amen to this!
It's only my existing lenses and fact that I quite like the Pentax for stills (as does Fleur, the other half of richandfleur) that's kept me hanging in there this long.

To be clear, I believe it was from 18 to 25. Still, I would like to see it shoot up higher.

Has this actually been confirmed? As in has someone taken a look at the files?


2012 18Mbps was ok
2015 18Mbps was looking silly
2017 25mps looks kinda embarrassing. Yes it's more than before, but it's about where things should have been in 2014 or so.