[normhead]

Let me doubt that the old FA line can cope with the possibly forthcomming 100 Mpix 33x44mm sensor.

Doubt whatever you want.... as pointed out above, There is not s single lens out there to date, that doesn't get better resolution with a higher density sensor. So far all this talk of needing better lenses for better sensors has been hogwash. You may be happier with better lenses but that was always true. But "cope" is not an issue. It's one of the longest going red herrings out there.

---

Last edited by normhead; 08-15-2018 at 01:06 PM.

[tellwill]

FTF: I have been using PENTAX gear for decades.

Top-end Nikon means D5, so your niche is $5K and up.
That would move Pentax out of the range of the vast majority of our forum members.

So an amen to that too, since there are a lot of OTHER pentax-fans than those forum members,

which are complaining, that price tags could be set too high for them

and therefore pretend to be happy with outdated (AF-)technology in their cameras.
And that is no way to go on.


Believe it or not, I would have paid 1000Euro more for a far more capable and up to date K-1.... that from a technical and strategical point of view should better have been more like a Nikon D850
That would not only have strengthened PENTAXs position in the MEGAPIXEL counting market, but would have made it possible to add a faster shooter in 2018 thats capable of competing with a Sony A7III...(not only from a technical but also from a price-tag point of view)
But now... this terrain is lost...


Dont get me wrong, I dont think its bad to have no or less money than others... And for that reason they should keep one cheaper APS-C model(like the K-70) in co to a flagship APS-C...
But its a good thing for sure to aim high and shoot mid, than to aim too low and put a silver bullet under the carpet.(again)

[Zygonyx]

Doubt whatever you want.... as pointed out above, There is not s single lens out there to date, that doesn't get better resolution with a higher density sensor. So far all this talk of needing better lenses for better sensors has been hogwash. You may be happier with better lenses but that was always true. But "cope" is not an issue. It's one of the longest going red herrings out there.

Write whatever you want...
I own the almost complete 645 lens line, and i can insure you that some of them were already finding their limit resolutionwise with the first 645D : e.g. FA 45/2.8 and FA80-160/4.5
Btw, this is wellknown and not only my findings, but I lack time to find links for you.

[clackers]

Write whatever you want...
I own the almost complete 645 lens line, and i can insure you that some of them were already finding their limit resolutionwise with the first 645D : e.g. FA 45/2.8 and FA80-160/4.5
Btw, this is wellknown and not only my findings, but I lack time to find links for you.

Can you find any lens in history in DxoMark (or any other source) that doesn't score higher on a more dense sensor?

You own lots of lenses, but you don't own a testing jig.

[BigMackCam]

FTF: I have been using PENTAX gear for decades.



So an amen to that too, since there are a lot of OTHER pentax-fans than those forum members,

which are complaining, that price tags could be set too high for them

and therefore pretend to be happy with outdated (AF-)technology in their cameras.
And that is no way to go on.


Believe it or not, I would have paid 1000Euro more for a far more capable and up to date K-1.... that from a technical and strategical point of view should better have been more like a Nikon D850
That would not only have strengthened PENTAXs position in the MEGAPIXEL counting market, but would have made it possible to add a faster shooter in 2018 thats capable of competing with a Sony A7III...(not only from a technical but also from a price-tag point of view)
But now... this terrain is lost...


Dont get me wrong, I dont think its bad to have no or less money than others... And for that reason they should keep one cheaper APS-C model(like the K-70) in co to a flagship APS-C...
But its a good thing for sure to aim high and shoot mid, than to aim too low and put a silver bullet under the carpet.(again)

Welcome to the forums

IMHO, it's not about which of us has more or less money. It may, however, be (in part) about what each of us is prepared to pay. Most K-1 owners here seem to be very happy with their cameras and what they paid for them. Even if they could have afforded to pay another 1000 Euro, they may not want to. Of course, most would also like to see real improvements in the area of AF-C performance. It's an area that needs work with Pentax cameras as a whole. No-one here, I think, "pretends" to be completely happy with the AF performance - most members are smart enough to realise there are better cameras in that area. Yet, for what the K-1 costs, it does rather well.

Another area where we differ is with respect to the APS-C line. Even as someone who shoots full-frame with another brand (Sony), the APS-C format is what I choose to shoot with Pentax DSLRs. So for me, a "flagship" APS-C model is important, and that preference seems to be echoed by a lot of our members.

The results from our recent survey show that a majority of respondents acknowledge Pentax AF performance needs improvement, and want development of a new flagship APS-C camera to replace the K-3II...

[Kunzite]

It's easy to say, "I would've paid another 1000 euro for a better camera".
But for Ricoh Imaging to make and profitably sell such a camera, that's another story. They'd have to develop a faster AF; to update the electronics (faster processor, more RAM, faster card writes etc.); to complete the lens line to a reasonable degree. And they'd need to persuade us to buy (which might imply marketing).

Think about it: the K-1 as it is, was a high resolution camera at entry level prices; that made people "forgive" it's lower performance and less sophisticated AF. Ricoh Imaging managed to compete on their strengths, instead of directly competing with Canon/Nikon feature-by-feature.
But a 3000 euro K-1? People would expect it to compete directly with the D850. If they can do it, that would be nice... but, is there any point in complaining that they didn't do it already?

Besides, saying is one thing - buying another. Sure, there are people I trust they'd do it (especially those with recent high-end Pentax purchases).
But there's a keyword that makes me immediately doubt it: Sony. And here it is, the "requirement" that Pentax would match the A7III in performance, and also on price. That camera is $2000.
So our friend here isn't willing to pay a cent more for a higher performing K-1.

[clackers]

what would Wikipedia make of this term?

Being 'Ronnish' - a term used by the fanbase of the former camera Brand Pentax about predicting the future, based on personal research of all available open sources and being right in the end all time.

'former camera brand Pentax'.

Well, the only way Wikipedia would say that is if you wrote it yourself, Ron, any definition about your personality and knowledge according to this forum's 45,000 members would say differently, and probably wouldn't make it past the swearing filters.

I'm sure you understand.

---

Last edited by clackers; 08-15-2018 at 04:58 PM.

[normhead]

Btw, this is wellknown and not only my findings, but I lack time to find links for you.

Sorry, I can't comment on data I can't analyze. Until you find your links you've got nothing. I've seen 4 or 5 sites discussing this, all of which were demonstrably false, or used only theory with no empiracle information. A theory without empiracle confirrmation is a hypothesis, at best, a notion at worst, not a fact.

SO, ya, you can claim what ever you want, not having any links is very inconvenient for someone as certain as you are. So, since you don't have links, can you at least discuss what methodology they used to make their determination. Without that you have nothing but an unsupported opinion.

[RonHendriks1966]

'former camera brand Pentax'.

Well, the only way Wikipedia would say that is if you wrote it yourself, Ron, any definition about your personality and knowledge according to this forum's 45,000 members would say differently, and probably wouldn't make it past the swearing filters.

I'm sure you understand.

Well you know......It's the internet.

Pentax was also welknown for being famous among a boy band in the sixties and seventies.

[Zygonyx]

Sorry, I can't comment on data I can't analyze. Until you find your links you've got nothing. I've seen 4 or 5 sites discussing this, all of which were demonstrably false, or used only theory with no empiracle information. A theory without empiracle confirrmation is a hypothesis, at best, a notion at worst, not a fact.

SO, ya, you can claim what ever you want, not having any links is very inconvenient for someone as certain as you are. So, since you don't have links, can you at least discuss what methodology they used to make their determination. Without that you have nothing but an unsupported opinion.

Rdenney's test is an example :

SMC Pentax-A 645 80-160mm F4.5 Reviews - 645 Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

If we are lucky and get a new 645 body we will see what i am meaning ; if not we will see nothing more.

But let's stop this out of topic discussion.

[clackers]

Rdenney's test is an example :

SMC Pentax-A 645 80-160mm F4.5 Reviews - 645 Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

Oh no you don't - get a point in and declare discussion's over. Awake to that trick!

Even Rick does not say that its resolution would not be better on a sensor with more pixels, Zygonyx.

He just says it's a disappointing lens.

So, do you have any real data?

[RonHendriks1966]

I had some of the 645 lenses and used the 645D for some short time.

The FA 80-160 was a good lens to my idea.
The A (i'm not sure I also had the FA) 45 lens where not good.

Ofcourse al these lenses could use a modern update if the 645 system wants to be around for another decade.

[zero86r]

Whatever happened to the proposed Q macro lens? Or was that some sort of fever dream I had...

[clackers]

Whatever happened to the proposed Q macro lens? Or was that some sort of fever dream I had...

Is the Q system still being developed, Zero?

[normhead]

Whatever happened to the proposed Q macro lens? Or was that some sort of fever dream I had...

Painfully absent. There were a few pre-production lenses available from a japanese website, I don't think it ever went into full production.