[ffking]

I find all this throw away consumerism from these once great brands depressing.

I think perhaps that the issue is with the fact that, unlike film cameras, the sensor will be seriously out of date (if not deteriorating) after 10 years (and much less at a pro level), so in a way there is no point in making a body that will last longer than the useful lifespan of the sensor. With film it was different - as long as you don't want AF or evaluative metering or automatic film transport, film cameras from the 70's or 80's (or earlier, perhaps) that have been looked after are as good as they ever were, and longevity is an asset if you can find or already own compatible lenses.

[ZombieArmy]

I feel like a long lasting camera body isn't as important as long lasting lenses. You can get good use out of a quality lens for decades, while the features of camera bodies evolve.

[biz-engineer]

Not sure what do with my Pentax gear..

Sell it on the market place like you did with the K1. I've just seen that you previously had a K1 and 28-105 kit.

[mee]

I feel like a long lasting camera body isn't as important as long lasting lenses. You can get good use out of a quality lens for decades, while the features of camera bodies evolve.

It seems all cameras are getting cheap these days. No brand seems immune.. Help! K1 hot shoe came off (warning: k1 gore) - PentaxForums.com

But yes I hope the lenses last at least a decade where as the camera only needs to last 4 or 5 years before upgrading. At one point I was upgrading every 2-3 years. The interesting point here is the DSLR specs are rather good these days to where one might not really feel the need so much to upgrade as much and, at the same time, it seems quality is slowly decreasing. So maybe this is the way to keep people 'upgrading.'

[biz-engineer]

I feel like a long lasting camera body isn't as important as long lasting lenses. You can get good use out of a quality lens for decades, while the features of camera bodies evolve.

That either might not be true anymore as the camera market is shrinking, some types of lens mount may disappear. I now consider buying again a full system at my next upgrade...

[normhead]

That either might not be true anymore as the camera market is shrinking, some types of lens mount may disappear. I now consider buying again a full system at my next upgrade...

But on the other hand, with Pentax thinking they have to have higher resolution lenses for new sensors, lens prices are going crazy. I might consider a close out K-1 at the end of the run and just using what I have. Just because a camera company says you have to spend big bucks doesn't mean you do.

It's pretty much a farce. We didn't need new lenses for the k-3 with a higher pixel density than a K-1, but now we need "really expensive", or, maybe we don't.

[Kunzite]

Fools. They should know the best option is to be the only system without higher resolution lenses

[monochrome]

The funny thing is, your older product may last longer than the newer one.

How depressingly true!

We couldn’t afford to buy cameras that were engineered to last that long.

Cars have gotten more durable, but most people never actually own a new one - they lease them and roll them over, or trade them before they’re paid for. My next 4-door sedan will cost more than my first house did (it was not a modest house) and I’ll probably keep it longer than the 13 years I lived there.

[richard0170]

I think perhaps that the issue is with the fact that, unlike film cameras, the sensor will be seriously out of date (if not deteriorating) after 10 years (and much less at a pro level), so in a way there is no point in making a body that will last longer than the useful lifespan of the sensor. With film it was different - as long as you don't want AF or evaluative metering or automatic film transport, film cameras from the 70's or 80's (or earlier, perhaps) that have been looked after are as good as they ever were, and longevity is an asset if you can find or already own compatible lenses.

I was making a more general point about products these days, not just cameras. Sticking to cameras though I am not sure I agree that sensors are significantly getting better. Sure the MP counts are going up, but this in itself raises issues - processing speeds and the need to have other hardware that can match the extra resolution. For me also the point of taking pictures is to ultimately print them for display, Trouble is our eyes can only resolve so much and I feel that we are now at a point where the sensors are outperforming our eyes and printers. I have on my wall a slightly cropped image from a Fuji X100, its probably about 10 mp, at 30X40 cms, as big as is comfortable for my living room. It is very sharp. Extra pixels would not make it any better. There have been more useful improvements to sensors eg backlit ones for improved low light performance and to the processing of the data the sensor collect. But for me I would still prefer, and be happy to pay for more longevity and reliability over slight technical improvements.
As for long lasting lenses I agree. One of the reasons I chose to buy my K3 was the ability to use my old manual focus Pentax glass, trouble is if say Pentax go under, this glass will be pretty useless for digital use. I know I could get a Sony A camera and an adaptor, but really why would one bother,as this is just a bodge.
Being an old cynic I don't think that modern build quality and customer service is due to manufacturers continually wanting us to have better products, but to force us into buying their stuff when we should not really have to. Cameras and other tech products are rushed into production these days with faults and design flaws not fully sorted out before hand -hence we see firmware updates, recalls, and short production periods before new models come out.

[mee]

Cameras and other tech products are rushed into production these days with faults and design flaws not fully sorted out before hand -hence we see firmware updates, recalls, and short production periods before new models come out.

Software is largely the same way. Think about the time before the internet, when software came on CDs or even Diskettes. There were serious testing departments that took time to iron out all the major flaws they could find. Because, they knew, once they pressed the CDs or wrote the disks that was it.

Or, in the days of cartridge based video games where there was not real way to patch the code.. its loaded on an chip soldered into a PCB and thats that.

Today, not only do companies have short development time tables, they also seem to forgo large scale testing in house. Instead it seems many offload a lot of the testing to individual users who then do the work for free. After the fact they can then offer a software patch and away we go...

[normhead]

Fools. They should know the best option is to be the only system without higher resolution lenses

Anyone seen the numbers on the new Pentax lenses compared to other manufacturers, I know on photozone the two rebadged Tamrons didn't stack up that well, that leaves the 150-450 and 70-200. I've seen nothing to suggest either are better than even third party offerings. After all the Tamron 70-200 and Sigma 70-200 are both very highly rated.

I don't know, for sure, but I suspect this is a case of expensive Pentax branded lenses being more money than but not better than what the competition produces. Some one please tell me I'm wrong.

How much higher resolution are these lenses? Given my use of TCs with both the K-3 and K-1, the current DA* lenses out resolve the sensors by at least 1.7x. So exactly what sensors can take advantage of these lenses? This whole line of thought is fraught with a lack of information, market speak etc. And Pentax's doing MTF by analyzing the designs instead of MTF tests on real lenses is just nonsense. We don't care what the designers set out to accomplish, only how the final product performs.

There is less to support this "modern designs for modern sensors" than just about anything I've seen. Someone do some tests and give us some numbers for grief's sake,

[mee]

Anyone seen the numbers on the new Pentax lenses compared to other manufacturers, I know on photozone the two rebadge Tamrons didn't stack up that well, that leaves the 150-450 and 70-200. I've seen nothing to suggest either are better than even third party offerings. After all the Tamron 70-200 and Sigma 70-200 are both very highly rated.

I don't know, for sure, but I suspect this is a case of expensive Pentax branded lenses being more money than but not better than what the competition produces. Some one please tell me I'm wrong.

How much higher resolution are these lenses? Given my use of TCs with both the K-3 and K-1, the current DA* lenses out resolve the sensors by at least 1.7x. So exactly what sensors can take advantage of these lenses? This whole line of thought is fraught with a lack of information, market speak etc. And Pentax's doing MTF by analyzing the designs instead of MTF tests on real lenses is just nonsense. We don't care what the designers set out to accomplish, only how the final product performs.

I'm not sure you're wrong. But I will say photozone occasionally rates really solid lenses rather poorly. However, they did give the Tamron 15-30 on Nikon high marks (Tamron SP 15-30mm f/2.8 Di VC USD (FX) - Review / Test Report - Sample Images & Verdict). If that gets high marks then the Pentax should be at least that well regarded... if not better.

That said, I'm looking at reviews on the Tamron 45mm f/1.8 since its cheap and I want a fast 50-ish. One thing I've noticed in the comparisons is they are saying it is as good as the Sigma 50 f/1.4 in IQ. Actually at f/1.8 between the two the Tamron is a skosh sharper... with a bit more contrast... despite it being less than half the price of the Siggy (and smaller and lighter) and the sigma lens stopped down (since its a 1.4 lens).

Pentax can afford (literally) to make a giant 50 f/1.4 though at a giant price... since there is little competition in K mount to tell them otherwise; There is no Tamron or Sigma competition.. and that holds true for most of their lenses.

I think they could have just offered the 45 f/1.8 in K mount as a Pentax lens with Pentax coatings for around 500-600 bucks and it would have been a hit. But f/1.4 on the label is more "premium" and that is what they seem to be after. I have no doubt it will pair well with the K-1 though. But, then again, the Tamron 45 f/1.8 would have too... this is one of the frustrations of working within a smaller brand. 3rd parties aren't so willing to play with you but OEM is.. for a price.

[Kunzite]

Anyone seen the numbers on the new Pentax lenses compared to other manufacturers, I know on photozone the two rebadged Tamrons didn't stack up that well, that leaves the 150-450 and 70-200. I've seen nothing to suggest either are better than even third party offerings. After all the Tamron 70-200 and Sigma 70-200 are both very highly rated.

I don't know, for sure, but I suspect this is a case of expensive Pentax branded lenses being more money than but not better than what the competition produces. Some one please tell me I'm wrong.

How much higher resolution are these lenses? Given my use of TCs with both the K-3 and K-1, the current DA* lenses out resolve the sensors by at least 1.7x. So exactly what sensors can take advantage of these lenses? This whole line of thought is fraught with a lack of information, market speak etc. And Pentax's doing MTF by analyzing the designs instead of MTF tests on real lenses is just nonsense. We don't care what the designers set out to accomplish, only how the final product performs.

There is less to support this "modern designs for modern sensors" than just about anything I've seen. Someone do some tests and give us some numbers for grief's sake,

Norm, no offense but I've noticed that you're fine with a slight softness in your images

We don't have enough reviews of the two Pentax lenses (I'll ignore the Tamrons as they are, obviously, Tamrons). Ephotozine tested the D FA* 70-200 on the K-1, and the D FA 150-450 on the K-3. They did well, and the users are happy with their lenses from what I see (I'm happy with my D FA 150-450 as well). One shouldn't assume from the lack of reviews that they're worse.

But the real game starts IMO with the upcoming D FA* primes.
Setting design criteria is not nonsense - they know how the lens should perform when it's just a drawing on a computer; and they likely have a maximum allowed deviation for the real product. The D FA* 70-200 was postponed because it couldn't met these criteria, right? There is a tight correlation between what they were set out to accomplish, and what we're getting.

There is a lot to support this "modern designs for modern sensors". The simple fact that you believe third party designs to be superior, for example; this is an undesirable situation. The praise lenses like the Sigma 50mm Art or the Nikkor 105mm f/1.4 are getting, Pentax should get this, too.

[Rondec]

Anyone seen the numbers on the new Pentax lenses compared to other manufacturers, I know on photozone the two rebadged Tamrons didn't stack up that well, that leaves the 150-450 and 70-200. I've seen nothing to suggest either are better than even third party offerings. After all the Tamron 70-200 and Sigma 70-200 are both very highly rated.

I don't know, for sure, but I suspect this is a case of expensive Pentax branded lenses being more money than but not better than what the competition produces. Some one please tell me I'm wrong.

How much higher resolution are these lenses? Given my use of TCs with both the K-3 and K-1, the current DA* lenses out resolve the sensors by at least 1.7x. So exactly what sensors can take advantage of these lenses? This whole line of thought is fraught with a lack of information, market speak etc. And Pentax's doing MTF by analyzing the designs instead of MTF tests on real lenses is just nonsense. We don't care what the designers set out to accomplish, only how the final product performs.

There is less to support this "modern designs for modern sensors" than just about anything I've seen. Someone do some tests and give us some numbers for grief's sake,

The only reviews I've seen have been on e photozine, which gave a good report to these lenses. Pentax HD PENTAX-D FA* 70-200mm f/2.8 ED DC AW Review Pentax HD Pentax-D FA 24-70mm f/2.8 ED SDM WR Review Keep in mind that prices on release were higher than now. The DFA 70-200 is priced at 1550 on Amazon and Canon 70-200 IS II is 1900. For whatever reason photozone has stopped reviewing pentax lenses and has never reviewed any of them on a K-1.

I would say the two things that I notice about the DFA 15-30, 24-70 and 70-200 (I haven't used the 150-450) are that they have significantly less chromatic aberrations, they focus faster than older lenses, and they have better builds.

As far as the "modern designs" thing, lenses like the DA *200 and FA 31 and 77 are very nice lenses. They are sharp, but they have really bad fringing -- bad enough that sometime fixing it will leave a gray line highlighting your subject. That is a real problem and something that modern designs avoid. That isn't to say you can't shoot with those lenses, of course you can. It is just that to get new folks into the brand, it would be nice to have some top tier glass to lure them in.

[normhead]

Norm, no offense but I've noticed that you're fine with a slight softness in your images

Ya, I've always been a believer in, "sharpness is a bourgeois concept." The appeal of an image is rarely related in any way to it's sharpness past a certain level of clarity.

And I'm getting cataracts.

Always develop philosophies to minimize the effects of your physical disabilities.

But seriously folks....
Some of the images I've sold the buyers told me they looked like paintings. A lot of technical photographers think there's something wrong with that. Personally, I'll take the money from a softer "painterly image" just as fast as I take the money from a tack sharp one. They all have their appeal. I post based on the appeal of the image, I don't give a crap about how sharp people think it is.

A while ago I quit applying sharpening to my bird images. I just apply micro-contrast. To me, over sharp images look fake. Sharpness is a value that must be applied judiciously just like everything else. Many on the site post images that look sharper than mine. Personally, I prefer less sharp, more natural looking. It's a conscieus decision to turn off PP sharpening, it's un-natural.

My wife, Tess on the other hand will not keep an image that isn't tack sharp everywhere. She examines each photo from one border to the other. Personally I think she's crazy, she has assigned a lot of great images to the trash bin, but each to their own.
One of my favourite stories was a day in the craft sale booth, a guy bought one of her images and one of mine. She spend a minute or two expelling what was wrong with mine, heavy contrast, dark shadows (a K20D sunset) image. At the end of of her little lecture, he simply nodded, pointed at it and said "I want that one." It may not have been photographically perfect in her mind (it was in mine or I wouldn't have printed it" but it was in his. There's a lot of folks out there who need to relax on the technical evaluations and just ask "does this appeal to me?"

I've never been sucked in by the "it has to be sharp to be good" nonsense, although I do notice many others have.

More on this here.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/58-troubleshooting-beginner-help/356487-...ml#post4143554