[mee]

They probably won't risk expanding R&D, because after filling the gaps in the lenses line they may have to shrink again and fire staff.

Interesting point... and perhaps why they decided to license the Tamron formulas for the 15-30 and 24-70 f/2.8 zooms. It was probably cheaper (and definitely quicker) in the long run to just license and launch those now instead of building up R&D teams and supply lines to research, design, and manufacture those. Especially if they didn't want to increase in size just for the short term.

[Rondec]

They probably won't risk expanding R&D, because after filling the gaps in the lenses line they may have to shrink again and fire staff.

I saw some examples for such behaviour in my former profession. I remember one case, when a big company placed a very big order with one of our competitors for a special model (metrology equipment). They refused to take that order, as it would have either needed big investments in buildings, machinery, and staff, or it would have blocked any normal production for several years. What happened in the end, was that the ordering company just bought the manufacturer, and took the risk themselves.

Think also about Boeing and Airbus: the media proudly announce if one of them gathered much more orders than the other, which is absolutely meaningless. Production of both companies is booked out for more than a decade already. But none of them risks strongly expanding production - what to do if orders decrease a lot in the future?

EDIT:
We just see the same problem with railways. None of the manufacturers (European or Canadian) can deliver on time. 1-2 years late must now be expected. The manufacturers just pay for the delay, probably had it in the calculation of their offerings anyway. Do they expand their production lines? No, they presently all are shrinking them (and some of them are booked out for many years, too).

There is enough work for several years. The 16-50 and 50-135 need a refresh. They are due for a replacement of the 12-24 that has been rumored for some time. There are plenty of full frame lenses to finish out the lens line up. I don't know how much smaller their lens design staff is now as compared to under Hoya, but even then they were able to release three to four lenses a year without too much problem.

[mee]

There is enough work for several years. The 16-50 and 50-135 need a refresh. They are due for a replacement of the 12-24 that has been rumored for some time. There are plenty of full frame lenses to finish out the lens line up. I don't know how much smaller their lens design staff is now as compared to under Hoya, but even then they were able to release three to four lenses a year without too much problem.

The work is there but do they want to invest the resources to perform that work?

[awscreo]

Some of the 'discussions' I've seen on other brand's forums could easily be mistaken as ours, just replace their brand with ours in the text and they'd read the same. It is rather uncanny.

I've seen very similar "discussions" on gaming, tech, phone, books, tv, movie and just general forums) People are tribalistic in nature

[Kunzite]

I'm not sure that is our fault. It isn't our job to protect the brand, we're not on salary. If people have a certain feeling about the brand, then it would be a lie to oppose your opinion publically just to save face for the brand. We're not fanbois per say.. we're Pentax users, but only as long as the brand meets our 'needs'.

It's not our job to protect the brand, but it's not our job to sabotage it either
Holding down on PentaxIsDoomed, until we have some sort of information of it actually happening (nope, we don't...) is not lying. It's being reasonable.

---------- Post added 11-08-17 at 10:15 PM ----------

Our job isn't really to protect Pentax -- that's their job. All they would need to do is make some statements, do a little advertising on social media, update the road map, or even release a new product. Anything along those lines would help out. I don't think Pentaxians are really a rabid bunch of fellows looking to bad mouth the company, but there has just been little info or products forthcoming since the release of the K-1 and the lenses that came out with it.

Sorry, but it's the other way around: I'm talking about not sabotaging Pentax. Not about protecting them.
We have a roadmap, some sort of a deadline for the D FA* 50mm f/1.4 (like it or not), and releasing products can't exactly be rushed. And we're too hasty to "punish" Pentax if something doesn't go according to our wishes... but what good is that? Does anyone really think that driving people away from Pentax would hasten the product launch rate?

[mee]

It's not our job to protect the brand, but it's not our job to sabotage it either
Holding down on PentaxIsDoomed, until we have some sort of information of it actually happening (nope, we don't...) is not lying. It's being reasonable.

First, you'd have to define 'sabotage', 'holding down on pentaxisdoomed', and 'being reasonable.' Next, we'd have to agree on those definitions. I don't think that is going to happen.


Not sure many, if any, here really think Pentax is going the way of the Dodo bird (extinct), if that is what you meant by 'pentax is doomed.' But we are in a lull state with Pentax at a rather sour period for camera makers across the board, so we should all expect comments that aren't all bright and fluffy. And, lens wise, Pentax has work to do..


To call the viewpoint you disagree with as essentially not valuable (which is the impression I'm getting with you making comment of reasonableness.. thus everyone else not aligned with PoV is unreasonable) makes the PF an echo chamber.. I don't think it is a case where anyone (I hope) thinks Pentax is toast nor is it the case anyone here thinks Pentax is going to catapult into a top spot. Let's not exaggerate points of views.

[Rondec]

It's not our job to protect the brand, but it's not our job to sabotage it either
Holding down on PentaxIsDoomed, until we have some sort of information of it actually happening (nope, we don't...) is not lying. It's being reasonable.

---------- Post added 11-08-17 at 10:15 PM ----------


Sorry, but it's the other way around: I'm talking about not sabotaging Pentax. Not about protecting them.
We have a roadmap, some sort of a deadline for the D FA* 50mm f/1.4 (like it or not), and releasing products can't exactly be rushed. And we're too hasty to "punish" Pentax if something doesn't go according to our wishes... but what good is that? Does anyone really think that driving people away from Pentax would hasten the product launch rate?

You should know by now that I am someone who is quite supportive. I've purchased several of the DFA zooms and a lot of other pieces of Pentax glass. I just haven't seen such a slow pace of new releases for a long time and it does concern me. When folks like Monochrome are starting to get worried, maybe there is something to be concerned about.

It really has been over a year since the last new k mount lens was released. That's a long time and it's made worse by the fact that Sony and Fuji are still cranking out new pieces of glass on a consistent basis.

I'm not leaving Pentax. I like my gear and there are no big holes in it right now, except maybe an ultra wide angle prime. It's just sad to me to see Pentax wasting the opportunity they have with high quality camera bodies and glass that they have.

They could do better.

[Kunzite]

Rondec, and you should know I wasn't talking about you.
People can get worried when their sometimes one-sided expectations aren't met. Even if it's Monochrome. But in this case, we had an imaginary scenario of a to-the-death fight between camera companies...

[clackers]

Perhaps. Yet I've seen photographers with rather detestable attitudes create fantastic work esp when it comes to landscape, nature, and architecture work. Artists can be an interesting bunch. I guess one wouldn't want someone angry as their portrait or wedding photog though...


Some people just don't feel the need to share their work on a discussion forum though. Be it because they are confident in their work and skill (don't need the empty kudos), value their privacy, or just don't see the value in sharing their work on such a medium. There are lots of reasons for that.. more than just those three... and not just because they may or may not have a 'good' attitude.

My attitude to someone insisting that their camera or lens is letting them down is not gear related at all: "Show us your portfolio" and a lot of questions suddenly get answered, Mee, and a lot of mysteries solved.

[mee]

My attitude to someone insisting that their camera or lens is letting them down is not gear related at all: "Show us your portfolio" and a lot of questions suddenly get answered, Mee, and a lot of mysteries solved.

I've seen a number of people's "portfolios" who think their gear is sufficient, and find their work poor. Perhaps that's gear related, perhaps it is just level of experience or lack of vision or they just have a different vision from mine. Yet, I have seen people upgrade gear and their work has "upgraded" too. I've also seen people who think they have wonderful work, in general, and I find it is average at best. Art is highly subjective and very personal.

So I don't think that's an accurate test and fails to answer the questions one is after...

[clackers]

I've seen a number of people's "portfolios" who think their gear is sufficient, and find their work poor. Perhaps that's gear related, perhaps it is just level of experience or lack of vision or they just have a different vision from mine. Yet, I have seen people upgrade gear and their work has "upgraded" too. I've also seen people who think they have wonderful work, in general, and I find it is average at best. Art is highly subjective and very personal.

So I don't think that's an accurate test and fails to answer the questions one is after...

I disagree.

I find it to be very accurate, Mee, *way* more indicative than rhe paragraphs a Gloomy Gearhead writes in a rant.

You might accept what a stranger on the Internet says, but the rest of us want to see evidence of their argument. It's very easy to do, and does not have to be a privacy-sensitive pic.

I don't want to see their gran in her delicates, either.

But we forum members who like to help other posters ask for examples of their problem, with intact EXIF.

The OPs are grateful to us when their issue"s solved - what a resource this forum is - but the sample photos are key..

[mee]

I disagree.

I find it to be very accurate, Mee, *way* more indicative than rhe paragraphs a Gloomy Gearhead writes in a rant.

You might accept what a stranger on the Internet says, but the rest of us want to see evidence of their argument. It's very easy to do, and does not have to be a privacy-sensitive pic.

I don't want to see their gran in her delicates, either.

But we forum members who like to help other posters ask for examples of their problem, with intact EXIF.

The OPs are grateful to us when their issue"s solved - what a resource this forum is - but the sample photos are key..

What you are seeing is what you want to see though... again art is subjective.

Yet this conversation is rather vague.. perhaps I don't understand what you mean.

So allow me to present an example -- Someone can say "I wish Pentax had a 48mm f/1.03 lens, XXXXX other brand has it. This 50mm f/1.4 isn't cutting it." and you say "Show me your photos."

Now, how does that serve you? You then pick apart their portfolio based off of your subjective opinions on it... based off your own personal likes and dislikes. In the end, their view and your view are still opinions and not fact. Perhaps it solidifies it in your mind, but it is still a subjective claim.

Even if you find their work wonderful, their view is still an opinion and your opinion of their opinion is still an opinion. There are no facts here because there is no agreement between good and bad art or an artist's perceived wants or needs.

We can say Dave Downunder's shots are largely more enjoyable than Joe Blows. But, even then, we don't have a true full agreement. Because appreciation, or valuing, of art is subjective.

I think you might be too far in the forest to not see the forest for the trees.

[mee]

I've seen very similar "discussions" on gaming, tech, phone, books, tv, movie and just general forums) People are tribalistic in nature

Perhaps so. That and the grass is always greener it seems. I think most people would like to cherry pick out of each brand if they could.. there seems to be a somewhat unique positive quality to most/all brand's gear. Too band they can't unite into one super camera system.

It also seems people tend to gravitate towards opinions that 'better' them.. whatever that better may be perceived by them. I'd guess the largest 'better' is to feel better about themselves. Probably why reality show and tabloids are so popular.. then they can watch this content and say "At least I'm not THAT bad."

I think this is similar to listening to women pick apart another woman.. that seems to be a common event. "Oh look at her shoes, it doesn't really match with her blouse. And those ear rings are gaudy. Her hair is so last decade. And she could lose a few pounds."

compared to

"Oh look at his image portfolio.. he didn't align the subject to the rule of thirds. And his exposure is half a stop off. And who photographs that as their subject anyway. The image processing is so uninspiring/too loud/common. I could take better photos with a toothpick, a rubberband, and some chewing gum."

Now we can sit back and smugly feel superior while also dismissing their views!

[reh321]

A slower release schedule for full frame lenses is probably fine once they get the line up filled out, but till they get the basic primes (ultra wide prime, 50 and 85 -- I know there is a 35-ish prime as well, but since we have the FA 31, that one isn't crucial to me) done, they should be cranking out at least three new lenses a year. It really doesn't feel like that is too much to ask for.

If you go back and read the threads pleading for a digital FF camera, one of the primary reasons given was "I want my YY XX to act like an XX" {where XX is any focal length and YY is some line of lenses from the film era}; similarly, there is the ever favorite "glass is forever". I believe Ricoh people can be excused for thinking that there was already a reservoir of FF-ready lenses out here just waiting to be put to work, so churning out new ones shouldn't be a high priority. {I came back to Pentax just a couple of years ago, so I don't know how many lenses they had been releasing per year recently, nor am I confident that I know anything about their current lens design capability}

[ffking]

So allow me to present an example -- Someone can say "I wish Pentax had a 48mm f/1.03 lens, XXXXX other brand has it. This 50mm f/1.4 isn't cutting it." and you say "Show me your photos."

I don't really want to get caught up in an unwinnable argument ( ie one where both sides have some truth and there isn't a simple right or wrong) but I would say in that case that the onus would be on the person who wants the 48mm f/1.03 to demonstrate what he can't do with 50mm that he could with the 48mm, and whether the this is insurmountable or apparent to anyone else - and this can only really be done by reference to images.