[MarkJerling]

Would you need a longer lens if they had a good TC?

I've never seen a TC that does not degrade image quality so, I'd probably aim to buy a HD Pentax-D FA 150-450mm F4.5-5.6 ED DC AW when I can afford to.

[BigMackCam]

Would you need a longer lens if they had a good TC?

I've never seen a TC that does not degrade image quality so, I'd probably aim to buy a HD Pentax-D FA 150-450mm F4.5-5.6 ED DC AW when I can afford to.

In any case, whilst a nice TC can be a useful addition, the loss of light has to be considered.

I like my HD DA 1.4x when used with the DA*60-250, and the results are very good indeed... but there's no getting around that one stop loss of light...

[MarkJerling]

In any case, whilst a nice TC can be a useful addition, the loss of light has to be considered.

I like my HD DA 1.4x when used with the DA*60-250, and the results are very good indeed... but there's no getting around that one stop loss of light...

One stop does not sound that much.

[jatrax]

I've never seen a TC that does not degrade image quality

I used to say that until I got the HD 1.4x TC. I suppose technically there has to be some degradation but honestly I cannot see any difference. And I've looked. The loss of light is a fact and no getting around that. But they proved to me with that TC that it is possible to make one with insignificant image degradation. It is nothing like the cheap 1.4x and 2x TC's of film days.


Why they do not have a FF version is beyond me.

[Larrymc]

Awesome, another moto brother I started in racing in 1974 on an Indian M50 and it all ended with my last bike a 2007 KX450, too many injuries over the years, never made it out of the local intermediate class. I still miss it to this day but photography has somewhat filled the gap. I raced the 83 and 84 RM125's, the full floater's were way ahead of their time.

Back on topic, I'm patiently waiting

Yes Sir.....fer sure! You raced for quite a while and I know quite well what too many injuries can do.....LOL. Thats one reason I stopped racing, my wife laid down the law...... You know in a way Suzuki was a lot like Pentax is now, out numbered by the likes of Honda, Yamaha and Kawasaki but they always produced great machinery just not in the quantities of the big three but in the hands of good amateurs and Pros they did quite well.

Hang in there!

[yucafrita]

I used to say that until I got the HD 1.4x TC. I suppose technically there has to be some degradation but honestly I cannot see any difference. And I've looked. The loss of light is a fact and no getting around that. But they proved to me with that TC that it is possible to make one with insignificant image degradation. It is nothing like the cheap 1.4x and 2x TC's of film days.


Why they do not have a FF version is beyond me.

What I would like to see in a new FF TC is that they preserve backwards compatibility. It would be really nice if, for instance, you plug that thing on an AF film SLR and some of the new lenses, where AF wouldn't work from the body, would actually AF via the TC. Like an MF lens with the old TCs.

[yucafrita]

In the german forum Pentaxians there is an interesting point raised.

Was gibt es eigentlich von Pentax neues? ? Pentaxians

Roughly translated:

"To keep this technical: ROI. Return of investment. For a rapidly shrinking market, the current burst of investments is not exactly wise. This rarely works out economically. It is an attempt to revive the market. Mature consumers will ask themselves, what is the added value, for example, of a Z7 compared to a D850?

Maybe it's time for the camera brands to announce that the market volume is back where it used to be. And then adjust the investing accordingly.

It may be that Pentax is one of the companies that understood this and "scaled" the development capacities accordingly. Maybe they are just slow. Who knows."

I would add that the scaled development capacities may not be result of understanding the shrinking market beforehand since it seems to have been small since years anyway. But now, it could fit the new environment. Evolutionary pre-adaption, if you like.

[Reed]

yucafrita- IMO, if you look on anything Ricoh related in terms of brand-consumer communication, starting from their website, posted sample photos, press releases etc, it's all up still in the mid-late 90's thinking. And it looks just as bad as it looked back then. So I don't think they scaled down the pace - they never had it.

[yucafrita]

yucafrita- IMO, if you look on anything Ricoh related in terms of brand-consumer communication, starting from their website, posted sample photos, press releases etc, it's all up still in the mid-late 90's thinking. And it looks just as bad as it looked back then. So I don't think they scaled down the pace - they never had it.

It was not my statement (the cursive text), I just quoted the statement from another perosn in the german forum. Just to have that clear. For me, it was more about that other companies burn cash in a shrinking market.

[RonHendriks1966]

In the german forum Pentaxians there is an interesting point raised.

Was gibt es eigentlich von Pentax neues? ? Pentaxians

Roughly translated:

"To keep this technical: ROI. Return of investment. For a rapidly shrinking market, the current burst of investments is not exactly wise. This rarely works out economically. It is an attempt to revive the market. Mature consumers will ask themselves, what is the added value, for example, of a Z7 compared to a D850?

Maybe it's time for the camera brands to announce that the market volume is back where it used to be. And then adjust the investing accordingly.

It may be that Pentax is one of the companies that understood this and "scaled" the development capacities accordingly. Maybe they are just slow. Who knows."

I would add that the scaled development capacities may not be result of understanding the shrinking market beforehand since it seems to have been small since years anyway. But now, it could fit the new environment. Evolutionary pre-adaption, if you like.

Jointly the market shrinks 10 % in revenue in yen this year for all Japanese company's. So the question is, what will bring next year? If the market keeps shrinking despite all those new expensive offers.....Well someone is going to feel the pain.

As for Pentax. I think they invest to much in expensive gear, while their customer base isn't used to spend that much. Instead of the expensive dfa*50 they would have better made a series of fullframe f2.0 lenses that are affordable, but yet very good (28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm).

[BigMackCam]

As for Pentax. I think they invest to much in expensive gear, while their customer base isn't used to spend that much. Instead of the expensive dfa*50 they would have better made a series of fullframe f2.0 lenses that are affordable, but yet very good (28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm).

I certainly don't think Pentax should neglect the lower to mid price market. The DFA*50/1.4 was necessary, as is the upcoming 85, to show professional-level (arguably market-leading) capability in the full-frame arena, so I applaud the company for developing these. But many (most?) K-1 & K-1II owners won't have that kind of money to spend on a single focal length, and many want smaller, lighter products, even if that comes at the expense of some optical performance, IMHO.

[thibs]

I used to say that until I got the HD 1.4x TC. I suppose technically there has to be some degradation but honestly I cannot see any difference. And I've looked. The loss of light is a fact and no getting around that. But they proved to me with that TC that it is possible to make one with insignificant image degradation. It is nothing like the cheap 1.4x and 2x TC's of film days.


Why they do not have a FF version is beyond me.

Worse: why did they even bother developing a DA converter as they knew FF was coming anyway...
It's not as if the FF version would have been a lot bigger or a lot more expensive IMO.

[BigMackCam]

One stop does not sound that much.

It's not, I suppose... unless you're shooting in less than perfect light, with a lens that isn't super-fast to begin with and needs stopping down a little for optimum performance. Then, every stop of light counts.

For example, the DA*60-250 performs well wide open at f/4, but at longer focal lengths - say, 135mm and above - it really benefits from being stopped down to at least f/5.6, and ideally f/8 for maximum sharpness and minimum CA. If we now add the 1.4x TC to the equation, that means we're shooting at the equivalent of f/8 to f/11. Of course, the DA*60-250 makes a very decent fist of things wide open, so you can get away with f/5.6 with the TC... but since the TC magnifies the effects of any softness and CA, you really need to stop the lens down at least a little bit.

[aurele]

It's not as if the FF version would have been a lot bigger or a lot more expensive IMO.

They will probably sell all of the remaining stock first. Then they will maybe create the FF version of it.

[BROO]

I certainly don't think Pentax should neglect the lower to mid price market. The DFA*50/1.4 was necessary, as is the upcoming 85, to show professional-level (arguably market-leading) capability in the full-frame arena, so I applaud the company for developing these. But many (most?) K-1 & K-1II owners won't have that kind of money to spend on a single focal length, and many want smaller, lighter products, even if that comes at the expense of some optical performance, IMHO.

I can see Ricoh releasing a series of high quality star lenses and possibly a couple of limited lenses to re establish their quality optics credentials, before re badging some of the Tamron f1.8 primes to satisfy the mid range market.