[Rondec]

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}

I suppose.

It is just free advertising every time you have a new release and if it is a high end lens and you can get copies into the hands of reviewers and they like the lens then it is a lot of positive press. Obviously you can shoot with older lenses or the DA *55 -- that's what I'm doing now and I'm fine with that. But Ricoh may end up losing sales in the long run if they delay a long time and people get settled into lenses that are good enough.

[Kunzite]

I have no idea why the D FA* 50mm was planned by the end of this fiscal year; and I agree the delay isn't helping.
However... we've got this information in February, too soon after the announcement of RICOH Resurgent for that to have any effect (and it's not like reorganizing Ricoh Imaging was their first priority!). Instead, the lens is rather the effect of the K-1's success. Given what we know, the D FA* 50mm launch date is "late" for technical reasons, not corporate.
Which also means there's nothing we could do but wait - and save more money.

[mee]

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.

I'm not really concerned about 'winning' or not.. because the case is still the same; the onus is not on anyone to prove anything about why they do or do not need a certain product. Much less do they need to prove it based off their image portfolio!

We're not in a structured work environment where we need to ask whomever is in charge of administering office supplies supplies for a certain item, then prove our requirement for it.

So why would anyone need to prove to another peer, a stranger they've never met no less, why they want/need a product? Are you going to order Pentax to make said product after you have deemed the necessity true? Or deny it in the same? I don't think any of us have that power.

No, this is just a wiener sizing contest in asking to see someones portfolio. It is just a means to both feel superior and dismiss them in a situation where there is no objective way to dismiss them.

[pres589]

Hey, did you guys hear that Ricoh is working on some new lenses?

[CarlG]

Hey, did you guys hear that Ricoh is working on some new lenses?

People, don't feed the troll. Again.

[ffking]

So why would anyone need to prove to another peer, a stranger they've never met no less, why they want/need a product? Are you going to order Pentax to make said product after you have deemed the necessity true? Or deny it in the same? I don't think any of us have that power.

No, this is just a wiener sizing contest in asking to see someones portfolio. It is just a means to both feel superior and dismiss them in a situation where there is no objective way to dismiss them.

Maybe I missed some of the debate, but I was assuming the comments related not to people's personal opinions but to complaints publicly made about the competence or strategy of camera companies, in which case I believe my point is valid

[mee]

Maybe I missed some of the debate, but I was assuming the comments related not to people's personal opinions but to complaints publicly made about the competence or strategy of camera companies, in which case I believe my point is valid

But complaints publicly made about the competence or strategy of camera companies are still personal opinions.

[Kunzite]

I'm not really concerned about 'winning' or not.. because the case is still the same; the onus is not on anyone to prove anything about why they do or do not need a certain product. Much less do they need to prove it based off their image portfolio!

But when someone says, "I wish Pentax had a 48mm f/1.03 lens, XXXXX other brand has it" he's likely trolling, and not intending to buy such a product - if it were to suddenly become available. There's no DSLR maker offering such a thing - so that other brand must be a mirrorless (was that supposed to be some Nokton 48mm f/0.95?). Another cue from your example: the D FA* 50mm f/1.4 being deemed as "not cutting it"; and the pattern is complete.
Such is the nature of your example.

OTOH, when someone says "this lens isn't cutting it", it's only natural to ask for examples. It's actually giving that man the benefit of doubt, the occasion to support his claim.

[ffking]

But complaints publicly made about the competence or strategy of camera companies are still personal opinions.

if you say so

[mee]

But when someone says, "I wish Pentax had a 48mm f/1.03 lens, XXXXX other brand has it" he's likely trolling, and not intending to buy such a product - if it were to suddenly become available. There's no DSLR maker offering such a thing - so that other brand must be a mirrorless (was that supposed to be some Nokton 48mm f/0.95?). Another cue from your example: the D FA* 50mm f/1.4 being deemed as "not cutting it"; and the pattern is complete.
Such is the nature of your example.

OTOH, when someone says "this lens isn't cutting it", it's only natural to ask for examples. It's actually giving that man the benefit of doubt, the occasion to support his claim.

That was merely an example I designed, I wouldn't take it too literally. Yet I'm not sure we can adequately know someone is really trolling in those matters.

And by trolling, I define that as making comments with the express desire and main purpose to get a rise or reaction out of someone.

People are fickle.. their wants, desires, and even needs are in a constant state of flux. Plus, we are prone to making mistakes or miscalculating.

So I can see the situation where someone says they really want something, then days/weeks/months/years later they decide they really want something else. Plus new items come on the market, they look more enticing.. and sometimes the want is more focused around the non-optical properties of the lens; There is also housing, weather sealing, focus motor, weight, size, feel, filter threading, etc. Photos won't provide any measurement to those, should we have some definitive way to judge a photo to prove one way or the other their need of a product (and we do not).

[mee]

if you say so

Not to draw it out any further, but I'm really curious how it could be anything but opinion?

I'm taking the definition of 'opinion' to mean, "a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge."


Either way, even with the market data large companies possess, companies have made really bad decisions based on their own opinion of the market. Look at Kodak for one. They were in complete denial that digital would become the dominate photographic medium and were in this denial for a decade. Even with having all kinds of data and market research they picked the wrong horse. Their opinion of where the market was headed and how and what digital really was turned out to be incorrect.

[Kunzite]

That was merely an example I designed, I wouldn't take it too literally. Yet I'm not sure we can adequately know someone is really trolling in those matters.

And by trolling, I define that as making comments with the express desire and main purpose to get a rise or reaction out of someone.

People are fickle.. their wants, desires, and even needs are in a constant state of flux. Plus, we are prone to making mistakes or miscalculating.

So I can see the situation where someone says they really want something, then days/weeks/months/years later they decide they really want something else. Plus new items come on the market, they look more enticing.. and sometimes the want is more focused around the non-optical properties of the lens; There is also housing, weather sealing, focus motor, weight, size, feel, filter threading, etc. Photos won't provide any measurement to those, should we have some definitive way to judge a photo to prove one way or the other their need of a product (and we do not).

Of course it's an example, I said so in my post. It just wasn't an example of a reasonable request, but of trolling. Claiming that the upcoming D FA* "isn't cutting it"? That some other brand is better?
Whatever you were trying to convey, can't be found in your example, I'd think.

The best is to ignore those... fickle people and go for your actual user base, and in general for buyers. It makes no sense to start a 2-3 years development cycle for someone who'd change his mind days later

And by the way, I'd be really interested to see examples of quality photography done with 50mm lenses at f/1.0, on FF.

[mee]

Of course it's an example, I said so in my post. It just wasn't an example of a reasonable request, but of trolling. Claiming that the upcoming D FA* "isn't cutting it"? That some other brand is better?
Whatever you were trying to convey, can't be found in your example, I'd think.

What is your definition of trolling?

And you're both arguing a strawman and parts of an example that never were meant to be questioned literally...

The best is to ignore those... fickle people and go for your actual user base, and in general for buyers. It makes no sense to start a 2-3 years development cycle for someone who'd change his mind days later

And by the way, I'd be really interested to see examples of quality photography done with 50mm lenses at f/1.0, on FF.

I think that is why the company relies on larger scale surveys, so they can weight majority views and discern trends in their data. The prospect of them reading two or three comments on a largely anonymous web forum stating someone wants something, and then investing millions into making it a reality is rather far fetched. Our comments and opinions on here are not even close to that valuable individually.

[Kunzite]

I'm not arguing a strawman, but your own example - that it's likely the worst possible to prove your point I'm surprised you still don't see anything wrong with it, even after I pointed out the problematic parts - attacking a yet unreleased Pentax product, asking for something not feasible as a FF DSLR lens, claiming another brand's (m4/3?) "superiority".
And in the end, simply claiming that f/1.4 is not fast enough (thus removing the problematic parts from your example) is precisely the kind of claim that needs pictures to prove it.
Using the physical characteristics of a lens is a much better example, however, and I'm skipping the D FA 15-30 myself because of its sheer size&weight. Although even in this case, there are situations in which pictures would be required (e.g. "I keep missing shots because the AF motor is so slow and unreliable!" - the natural response is, obviously, to see if it's indeed the AF motor).

We did have an impressively extensive survey a while back, after all.

[mee]

I'm not arguing a strawman, but your own example - that it's likely the worst possible to prove your point I'm surprised you still don't see anything wrong with it, even after I pointed out the problematic parts -

attacking a yet unreleased Pentax product,

asking for something not feasible as a FF DSLR lens,

claiming another brand's (m4/3?) "superiority".

Woosh.

1) I did not attack or even mention an unreleased Pentax product (though I can understand the confusion; I was going to use f/2.8 in my random aperture choice, but figured f/1.4 would be more acceptable for the discussion)

2) I didn't ask for anything feasible or not

3) I didn't claim another brand's superiority

Again, you completely missed it. My example lens specs were just made up to give a example comparison, not to draw conclusions directly from the specs themselves (beyond the two are rather close in focal length and aperture which was the point of the example).

And in the end, simply claiming that f/1.4 is not fast enough (thus removing the problematic parts from your example) is precisely the kind of claim that needs pictures to prove it.
Using the physical characteristics of a lens is a much better example, however, and I'm skipping the D FA 15-30 myself because of its sheer size&weight. Although even in this case, there are situations in which pictures would be required (e.g. "I keep missing shots because the AF motor is so slow and unreliable!" - the natural response is, obviously, to see if it's indeed the AF motor).

We did have an impressively extensive survey a while back, after all.

You too seem to be missing the forest for the trees, as you totally and completely missed my point and are arguing things in the example that don't matter to the discussion itself. Entirely over your head.