[Sandy Hancock]

Stretching that to saying if you don't know that history, it somehow makes you a lesser photographer.

Sorry, I must have missed the bit where anyone suggested that.

[mee]

The point of a reference lens is the statement. It is an icon, a standard, representing more about the company than the lens itself.

It is understood relatively few people will actually buy the lens, but many will wish they could, and those who can choose any brand will look at Pentax, whereas before they wouldn't even think of it. It is one, necessary step in a long journey for Pentax. The days when a camera company could just release a complete system in a few short years like the mid-70's are long behind us.

The smug, shallow, uncaring, narcissistic, unaware of history attitude to which you refer is vile; an illness of the modern world.

Sorry, I must have missed the bit where anyone suggested that.

You did not miss it... you even 'liked' the post.

The comment was in response to my comment about photographers not caring about the history of a camera company and, instead, just wanting decent performing lenses so they can do their own photography.

The response back was it was smug, shallow, uncaring, narcissistic, and an attitude of being unaware of history which he considered vile and an illness of the modern world.

[jonlg]

I'm 47 and thus probably in the middle of this forum demographic. Personally I take photographs because I enjoy expressing myself but I want to be a good photographer and I think that absorbing the work of other photographers is beneficial to your own development. Clearly somebody like David Bailey was born with a natural aptitude for photography but he learned the craft as an apprentice under seasoned pro's and I'm sure was and indeed is continually absorbing influences from the world around him in terms of fashion, music, design etc. In short you don't get to be Paul McCartney in 'The Beatles' without absorbing/hearing and loving american blues and early rock and roll. I have no desire to operate in a creative and cultural vacuum so love viewing/experiencing the work of other artists - it stimulates my own creativity and technique.

As for the heritage and whether it is important I think it is. Many many products trade on their heritage - Aston Martin for example on their James Bond connection and they incorporate elements from their earlier designs in their current models very successfully. Fuji have become so successful in the mirrorless market partly because they embraced the 1950's Contax rangefinder design ethic and based the brand on a sort of 'retro chic'. Olympus are very aware of the marketing power of their heritage and leverage that successfuly into their designs. For me heritage and history is important and so I would never buy a Sony A7 because although at 42megapixels it offers the best imaging quality in the smallest body of any full frame camera it has no soul, the interface is clunky (due I think to Sony having no camera engineering heritage and being a tech company) the thing is just another tech appliance like a toaster, a microwave or a CD player - where's the romance??? Ask yourself why vinyl is undergoing a resurgence? - because people enjoy the tactile quality of records, the gorgeous engineering of turntables, their record covers, the smell of old and new vinyl and the memories of girlfriends and hazy Summer days being spent kissing in your student digs to a particular record. Memories and heritage are enormously important to the vast majority of people - indeed what is the point of photography if not to preserve the past?

I love the fact that Pentax has finally woken up to the marketing value of its own heritage and the fact that the K1 for example apes the pentaprism of the 6x7 or that the KP looks just like my old MZ-5n. For many of us photography is a romantic hobby and for me at least I stick with Pentax because I love their quirkyness, their incredible history of engineering, their passion for ruggedness and weathersealing and the fact that for over thirty five years I have used their cameras on glaciers in Alaska, in deserts, on mountains, at the birth of my first child and at thousands of other important times in my life and they have never ever let me down. You can call that blind loyalty if you wish or you can call it heritage but for me it has created a very strong bond with the brand that I simply will not break so long as they continue building great SLR based cameras and lenses.

Heritage - it's a life well lived with a faithful friend,

Jonlg

Jonathan Gorse Photography

[Sandy Hancock]

The response back was it was smug, shallow, uncaring, narcissistic, and an attitude of being unaware of history which he considered vile and an illness of the modern world.

....no mention of you being a lesser photographer though....

[mee]

....no mention of you being a lesser photographer though....

Please re-read... the context is important.

The comment was in response to my comment about photographers not caring about the history of a camera company and, instead, just wanting decent performing lenses so they can do their own photography.

The response back was it was smug, shallow, uncaring, narcissistic, and an attitude of being unaware of history which he considered vile and an illness of the modern world.

I think I'm done with responding to you though on this matter in this thread. You just keep going around and round... it's fruitless and, at this point, rather tiresome... we can agree to disagree or you can take it up with me in PMs.

[sibyrnes]

Physical stores are useful for buyers such as I, who knowingly and willingly pay a premium for local access, touch and try, personal service and consultation - and who, as a matter of principle and personal integrity, will not buy online after showrooming at the local store.

The retail channel is moving to a higher priced Client Experience model just like the manufacturers.

I wish more people would display the "principle and personal integrity" of which you speak. I was in the retail camera business for 7 years and I can't tell you how many hours I spent demoing equipment and answering questions just to have the customer walk out and buy from some out of town dealer for a lower cost. I may have sold more cameras for B&H than I did for the guy paying my salary! It is the lack of "principle and personal integrity" displayed by the average customer that helped destroy the local B&M camera store and, unfortunately, I see no signs of that changing.


I agree that a premium 50mm f1.4 is something Pentax needs to have, but it is also something I have no need for and no desire to purchase. I am still waiting patiently for my new DFA 20mm Limited

[monochrome]

I wish more people would display the "principle and personal integrity" of which you speak. I was in the retail camera business for 7 years and I can't tell you how many hours I spent demoing equipment and answering questions just to have the customer walk out and buy from some out of town dealer for a lower cost. I may have sold more cameras for B&H than I did for the guy paying my salary! It is the lack of "principle and personal integrity" displayed by the average customer that helped destroy the local B&M camera score and, unfortunately, I see no signs of that changing.


I agree that a premium 50mm f1.4 is something Pentax needs to have, but it is also something I have no need for and no desire to purchase. I am still waiting patiently for my new DFA 20mm Limited

The unfortunate result of this thoughtful decision is eventually (given a limit of total expendable funds for gear) I will reach a point where I won't buy the marginal Pentax lens. Funds for that marginal purchase were expended in higher prices and 9.125% Sales Tax.

[pinholecam]

I love the fact that Pentax has finally woken up to the marketing value of its own heritage and the fact that the K1 for example apes the pentaprism of the 6x7 or that the KP looks just like my old MZ-5n. For many of us photography is a romantic hobby and for me at least I stick with Pentax because I love their quirkyness, their incredible history of engineering, their passion for ruggedness and weathersealing and the fact that for over thirty five years I have used their cameras on glaciers in Alaska, in deserts, on mountains, at the birth of my first child and at thousands of other important times in my life and they have never ever let me down. You can call that blind loyalty if you wish or you can call it heritage but for me it has created a very strong bond with the brand that I simply will not break so long as they continue building great SLR based cameras and lenses.

Heritage - it's a life well lived with a faithful friend,

Jonlg

Jonathan Gorse Photography

Wow! Nice pictures on your website.

[Uluru]

I'd sooner it was a 1.4/43mm lens. Great focal length.

Although FA43 Ltd is a fine lens, that FoV gets you nowhere.
If it were interesting at all, it would have been done in between 1950-1980s. But is neither fish nor fowl. It sits right in between 35 and 50, and can't do anything those two can. Not tele enough for fine portraits, not wide enough for a decent scene with background that tells the story. If a photographer has 35 or 50, 43 is superfluous. If has 43, then he needs both 35 and 50 again.

So what's the use if it?

The story behind the FoV of FA limiteds is a wholly fabricated Asahi's PR fantasy — it has no support with any need of reportage photographers, and Asahi did them because no one else in the world ever did them and they do sound odd enough to ask, "What?!"

[Sandy Hancock]

The story behind the FoV of FA limiteds is a wholly fabricated Asahi's PR fantasy

I'm pretty happy to live in that fantasy.

There's no need to get hung up on the magic properties of 35 and 50 any more than 31, 43 or 77. I don't miss 35 or 50, and if I really need them I have a decent zoom which covers them pretty competently.

Viva la difference!

Anyway, it looks like Ricoh is addressing the perceived need for these tradesman-like focal lengths, so everyone can be happy

[Mistral75]

Although FA43 Ltd is a fine lens, that FoV gets you nowhere.
If it were interesting at all, it would have been done in between 1950-1980s. But is neither fish nor fowl. It sits right in between 35 and 50, and can't do anything those two can. Not tele enough for fine portraits, not wide enough for a decent scene with background that tells the story. If a photographer has 35 or 50, 43 is superfluous. If has 43, then he needs both 35 and 50 again.

(...)

Except that there have been 70mm lenses for 645 cameras, 80mm lenses for 6x6 cameras and 100mm lenses for 6x9 cameras far before any 50mm 24x36 lens and those provide the same field of view as a 43mm lens on a 24x36 camera.

The reason for 50+mm lenses for 24x36 cameras is the quest for larger apertures: it was/is easier to design a larger aperture lens with a focal length which is slightly longer than the diagonal of the film format. Hence the 50mm, 55mm and even 58mm lenses in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. People got into the habit and 50mm has been since considered as the standard focal length for the 24x36 format even though some "odd" 40mm, 43mm and 45mm were also produced.

[HopelessTogger]

I'm pretty happy to live in that fantasy.

There's no need to get hung up on the magic properties of 35 and 50 any more than 31, 43 or 77. I don't miss 35 or 50, and if I really need them I have a decent zoom which covers them pretty competently.

Viva la difference!

Anyway, it looks like Ricoh is addressing the perceived need for these tradesman-like focal lengths, so everyone can be happy

50mm probably became the accepted normal/standard focal length for 35mm film because Oskar Barnak said so.

[ffking]

Although FA43 Ltd is a fine lens, that FoV gets you nowhere.
If it were interesting at all, it would have been done in between 1950-1980s. But is neither fish nor fowl. It sits right in between 35 and 50, and can't do anything those two can. Not tele enough for fine portraits, not wide enough for a decent scene with background that tells the story. If a photographer has 35 or 50, 43 is superfluous. If has 43, then he needs both 35 and 50 again.

So what's the use if it?

The story behind the FoV of FA limiteds is a wholly fabricated Asahi's PR fantasy — it has no support with any need of reportage photographers, and Asahi did them because no one else in the world ever did them and they do sound odd enough to ask, "What?!"

Although this doesn't automatically guarantee it usefulness, I have heard, from an independant source with no obvious axe to grind*, that 43mm is technically the closest fit to the field of view of human vision. I can't verify this, but it might be worth considering.

* I'm pretty sure it was Marc Levoy in the series of lectures on photography that a member here gave a link to

[Glorfindelrb]

I have heard, from an independant source with no obvious axe to grind*, that 43mm is technically the closest fit to the field of view of human vision. I can't verify this, but it might be worth considering.

Actually you can:
The whole thing about normal lenses is to get human like perspective at "normal" viewing distance and this "normal" viewing distance is equal to the picture/print diagonal.

sqrt(56²+41.5²) ~ 69.7 (diagonal for 645FF)
sqrt(43.8²+32.8²) ~ 54.7 (diagonal for 645Z sensor)
sqrt(24²+36²) ~ 43.3 (diagonal for FF sensor)
sqrt(23.7²+15.7²) ~ 28.4 (diagonal for APS-C sensor)
sqrt(7.44²+ 5.58²) = 9.3 (diagonal for 1/1.7" Q7/Q-S1 sensor)

Edit: fixed after Mistral quality control.

[Mistral75]

Actually you can:
The whole thing about normal lenses is to get human like perspective at "normal" viewing distance and this "normal" viewing distance is equal to the picture/print diagonal.

sqrt(60²+45²) = 75 (diagonal for 645FF)
sqrt(43.8²+32.8²) ~ 54.7 (diagonal for 645Z sensor)
sqrt(24²+36²) ~ 43.3 (diagonal for FF sensor)
sqrt(23.7²+15.7²) ~ 28.4 (diagonal for APS-C sensor)
sqrt(7.44²+ 5.58²) = 9.3 (diagonal for 1/1.7" Q7/Q-S1 sensor)

Film 645 is 56mm x 41.5mm. Diagonal is 70mm.