[Nicolas06]

Solving engineering problems is not a hobby, it's a job/profession, although getting challenged by DSLR photography and liking to learn and solve problems may be the motivation, that's a confusion. For me, photography is not a problem to be solved, it's a hobby. Saying "photography is a solved problem" is like saying cars are a solved problem. Thirty years ago, cars were able to bring you from A to B, and nowadays, cars are also able to go from A to B, interestingly, people still buy new cars (one could have a old car and still travel safely from A to B, but car designs evolve and a lot of people actually buy new cars without needing it, and a car is way more expensive relative to a camera). The expression "photography is a solved problem" is a sign of boredom. I know a number of people who stopped photography completely, they left their canon dslr in the cartons, moved on to other things in life, occasionally still take casual photos with their phone with no any artistic intend; It can happen that a hobby get low prio in life, like passion it comes and go, especially when we are young. I know a guy who went all the way through Canon DSLR and he then stopped photography as a specific hobby, sold everything Canon , got a Oly M43 dropped in his bag that he uses once a year during his vacation. I fully understand that.

But we are in the same situation as cars. Exactly. We are in a replacement market people buy again when the previous one broke. In car as the thing is more complex it can be when the expense to keep it in shape go too high or when things start to fall appart. One might think people buy car because they want a new one, not because the old one is just too old, but this is not the majority. Yes if you buy a new car that now drive entirely itself, that car solved a new problem, that for sure. But if basically that the same car as 10 year ago, with 2-3 more gadgets, the most benefit is the plastic and fabric is new, there no big spending on repair and so on...

Here for example, the average age of a car in the country is about 8 years old. And I am in a western, so called "rich" country. Sure some people still think they need to have a new one every 3 years, or even every 6 months, but the thing shift.

As for that lens and my motivation this is just that I have different priorities. I would accept to have a lens that big/heavy if it was a 200mm f/2.8 or f/2, even if I would be unlikely to buy it. Here I know you can make truely fantastic lenses for 1/4 of the size weight. I could understand 1/2 of the size/weight even if I would not buy it.

Ultimately, this is not a matter of price, if I had unlimited founds, I go for a Leica and a set of small primes. I'd not buy inflated lenses just for the sake of having the biggest in town or wining sharpness reviews.

As for mobile phone I don't know why you insist on that, the only photo I take with mine is for example to keep some trace of a discussions and drawing done at work on the white board for a design... For photos, I use the K3... As if no artistic intent or obvious lack of sharpness with my gear, I don't think so, even if I think I am far from being good. But I know the gear isn't the problem.

This is taken recently with my diminutively small, 20 years in the design, terribly soft lenses...

FA77, f/2.5



FA77 f/2.5




FA77 f/3.5



I don't think sharpness or the lens rendering is to put to fault there, by far. If you don't like the photos, it from the photographer that has it would seems not artistic goal, not the gear.

But I wonder? When so many people, you included post quite average bird shots... It is with or without artistic intents? I mean criticizing other people doing is easy And there so many average birds shots posted there because the light, the subject distance, and yes because lack of sharpness and noise come into play that I really wonder if the priority shall really be a bit better 50mm at the expense of size/weight/price or something to help all theses birders photographers finally getting acceptably sharp, not too noisy shots? Again criticism is easy but for me, yes lens sharpness for 24-200mm is a solved problem, even more so on primes, what we speak of there. Getting more, doesn't improve noticably the actual pictures.

As the problem is solved, it make more sense, yes to focus on artistics aspects of the photo or if we still speak of gear to focus on practical aspects like a reasonable price so more can afford it, a reasonable size/weight so it is a joy to use and not something that stay at home... So that new DFA50 lens? It is made to win reviews, not to be practical. As such it will be big/expensive/heavy. Many people there will speak higly of it, but few will buy it, even less will use it as their default lens on their camera...
5
But yes, I understand this is not really the goal. The lens is just like when a car manufacturer invest in formula one. But this also mean we still don't have any plan for a practical 50mm with snappy AF motor, no CA... The only true FF lens available and practical to use and affordable new remain the DFA50 f/2.8 and the FA50 f/1.4 the other are stated as not compatible with FF by Pentax and the DFA50 again is a formula one, not a lens that many will buy or use...

---

Last edited by Nicolas06; 03-10-2017 at 01:06 AM.

[biz-engineer]

But we are in the same situation as cars. Exactly.

Yeah, so people in cities like small cars because they are easier to park in cities. Also, if someone live in the country side and has to drive long distances, large cars are more comfortable, but more costly and need more space to park. There are even people who like large 4WD, that are not really needed, it just that driving a large 4WD in the small roads of the countryside and national parks does not give the same feeling as driving a small car. That's just that cameras are tools , and there are variants of tools more or less adequate to the task and people's desires. Shoot indoors available light, you may want that 50mm f1.4 wide open, why not... Shoot candid portraits and you may prefer the small lens on apsc body because you don't want to be invasive. Some people like big cameras to hand hold with long lenses, more grip, weather sealed, feels more robust, just look at Canon 7D or Nikon D500; they are as large as a K1 (I personally would hate shooting with a 100-400 mounted on a A6000 or XT20, I much prefer a camera with a grip of the size of my hands). However, if I was using standard to short tele primes (20mm -> 100mm), I'd appreciate to have a smaller camera, so that the camera and lens are balanced and they fits in a small bag that can be carried around without feeling it. Different use cases, and sets of advantages / drawbacks.

About this thread, Pentax already have small traditional FA lenses, if Ricoh where relooking those legendary FA lenses, it may just modify the market value of the older versions and some owners may be frustrated. Now, if Ricoh makes new lenses that are different design tradeoffs (i.e larger , sharper, modern coating rendering, more expensive) , that does not spoil the value of the traditional Pentax FA limited primes , and that's IMO a good thing.

[lithedreamer]

But we are in the same situation as cars. Exactly. We are in a replacement market people buy again when the previous one broke.

But we're not. My K-x didn't break and force me to upgrade to a K-30, and that didn't break and force me to upgrade to a K-1. Each one had new features and welcome improvements.

I also have a Subaru Forrester that either needs it engine replaced (~$5000) or the whole car replaced. That's a much different situation. I wouldn't be buying a new Forrester because of some cool new feature it had, but because it would have all new parts.

[monochrome]

^^ Frankly, we're going to run our Accord and Mini until they can't be repaired. Not only do we not need all those features, we actively dislike them (don't want our cars 'talking' to other cars - and giving up their secrets to Big Brother).

Similar with cameras, or getting close. When it has an image sensor, radio, microphone, speaker and GPS it is essentially a monitoring and tracking device, just like a phone and a car.

[Nicolas06]

But we're not. My K-x didn't break and force me to upgrade to a K-30, and that didn't break and force me to upgrade to a K-1. Each one had new features and welcome improvements.

I also have a Subaru Forrester that either needs it engine replaced (~$5000) or the whole car replaced. That's a much different situation. I wouldn't be buying a new Forrester because of some cool new feature it had, but because it would have all new parts.

Kx vs K1 is like a Renault twingo or ford fiesta and an Bmw serie 2. Different usage, different needs. We should not confuse market segments and overall performance. It doesn't mean that there much difference between K1, D800 and D810 or K3 and KP even through there a few years apparts the models.

[Rondec]

But we're not. My K-x didn't break and force me to upgrade to a K-30, and that didn't break and force me to upgrade to a K-1. Each one had new features and welcome improvements.

I also have a Subaru Forrester that either needs it engine replaced (~$5000) or the whole car replaced. That's a much different situation. I wouldn't be buying a new Forrester because of some cool new feature it had, but because it would have all new parts.

For sure.

I wouldn't buy a new camera every year by any means and probably would skip a generation or two on a camera, but I certainly don't wait for my old camera to break to get a new one. I would say a replacement every three years or so would be average. The K-1 has a shutter that is good for what, 200,000 actuations? I am unlikely to hit that mark, but by the time the K-1 replacement comes out, in a couple of years, odds are I will want to get it.

Cost of a new car and a new camera are on different levels and I suppose that probably makes a difference, as I do tend to run my cars till they start to break down.

[awscreo]

Can't believe this thread is still going strong

[lithedreamer]

Kx vs K1 is like a Renault twingo or ford fiesta and an Bmw serie 2. Different usage, different needs. We should not confuse market segments and overall performance. It doesn't mean that there much difference between K1, D800 and D810 or K3 and KP even through there a few years apparts the models.

The K3 and KP are different market segments, too. Why are you comparing those when Ricoh has said time and time again that the KP is not a replacement for the K3?

[thibs]

The K3 and KP are different market segments, too. Why are you comparing those when Ricoh has said time and time again that the KP is not a replacement for the K3?

He's trying to justify his own choices (which totally respectable BTW) by twisting reality so it aligns with his analysis. Nothing new here.

[Rondec]

I think we need to be clear that most progress is evolutionary rather than revolutionary. That is to say that a new generation of camera or sensor is likely to improve somewhat on things like high iso performance and auto focus speed, but probably will not blow past generations away. Also, not every camera is designed for every photographer. I have purchased many cameras from Pentax over the years, but there also have been many that I didn't purchase and many lenses as well. A 150-450 lens may be a wonderful lens, but I just don't shoot much telephoto images beyond what I can get with my 70-200.

Comparing price on the K3/K3 II to newly released cameras is not particularly useful either. Most cameras are most expensive when released and price will fall some over time. I don't know if the KP will drop much, but certainly the K3 II has over time. That said, the sequel to the K3 II (which isn't the KP) will be more expensive than the KP.

I think the final comment I would have is that you pay a lot of money for small improvements in image quality. A DA 35 f2.4 may give you 85 percent of the performance of an FA 31, but you end up paying a lot for that improvement in build, smoothness in transitions and extra stop of light. The same will be true for the DFA *50 compared to older designs like the FA 50, DA *55 and FA 43. If you primarily shoot at f2.8 and more stopped down, then this lens probably won't provide a whole lot of benefit. On the other hand, if you want to shoot at f1.4, this probably will give you a real bump in performance over older designs. But it is a mistake to say that just because a particular piece of glass isn't something I need, that it isn't for anyone and that Pentax shouldn't make it.

[biz-engineer]

But it is a mistake to say that just because a particular piece of glass isn't something I need, that it isn't for anyone and that Pentax shouldn't make it.

Should be careful that statements made online by some people aren't very deep. Anything can be said online, true or not. Some people dare to deliver advice based on what they think rather than based on actual experience.

[Rondec]

Should be careful that statements made online by some people aren't very deep. Anything can be said online, true or not. Some people dare to deliver advice based on what they think rather than based on actual experience.

I guess the question is if a lens like the DFA *70-200 is worthwhile. Certainly the DA *200 or FA *200 delivery quite a bit of the performance with regard to image quality, although they lag a bit wide open. They don't auto focus nearly as fast though and if you want f2.8 performance, then the DFA is the way to go.

I'm glad there are both options available and people can choose.

(DFA *70-200 at 200mm and f2.8)

[thibs]

I guess the question is if a lens like the DFA *70-200 is worthwhile. Certainly the DA *200 or FA *200 delivery quite a bit of the performance with regard to image quality, although they lag a bit wide open. They don't auto focus nearly as fast though and if you want f2.8 performance, then the DFA is the way to go.

I'm glad there are both options available and people can choose.

(DFA *70-200 at 200mm and f2.8)

IMO DA*/FA*200 will replaced by another design anyway.

[Rondec]

IMO DA*/FA*200 will replaced by another design anyway.

Probably. But that will be more expensive than current options and the same equation will apply. Beyond which, Pentax isn't going to re-do the 200mm prime until they get the 20mm/35mm/50mm/85mm slots taken care of (which will probably take a couple of years minimum to accomplish).

[wed7]

until they get the 20mm/35mm/50mm/85mm slots taken care of (which will probably take a couple of years minimum to accomplish).

And I was fool to assume that they will release the wider primes first and they lack wider focal length lenses/primes both for apsc and FF😑