[biz-engineer]

And we probably will move into 2020 for something if ever anything is coming for 645.

That's fine to have 4 years life cycles, if competitors do the same.

[Adam]

Please explain. Is this not a ★ lens (which are always designed in-house), with Pentax owning the design patent, manufactured in the Pentax facility in Vietnam?
Are you implying that Pentax would not have released it if Tokina had not been willing to buy a license to build it in other mounts?

It is a Pentax design. As far as I'm aware they're just also making it available through Tokina to make some extra cash. Makes a lot of sense (and is a great lens option for Canon and Nikon users too).

[Larrymc]

It is not coming in 2019.

Oh!!! You must be one of those who talk but know nothing??

[Docrwm]

DFA28-105 is by all means modern and very good opticaly zoom lens made entirely by Ricoh. DFA70-200/2.8 is also better than any of its competitors to date. New recently released DFA*50/1.4 is IQ comparable to 3x more expensive Zeiss Otus, not to mention Sigma 50mm Art lens, even if Tokina part of the deal is quite unclear(apart of the optics design being fully Ricoh IP).

Again, your subjective evaluations of their quality is not the issue. None of those are innovative in how they approach the issue, their focal length, their general features, etc. They are covering the same ground that has been covered endlessly since the beginning of 35mm film. I appreciate that many, most, of us her are Pentax fans - that does not negate the complete lack of innovation over the past few years in their lens lineup.

[RonHendriks1966]

Oh!!! You must be one of those who talk but know nothing??

Well a lot of people where talking about that camera coming in 2018. They where praised for those words.......

---------- Post added 03-01-19 at 20:39 ----------

That's fine to have 4 years life cycles, if competitors do the same.

645Z was announced april 15th 2014. It is moving into a 6 year cycle.

Ricoh-Imaging changed over the past years. Investments are for product ranges that have a good option for a good ROI.

[Kunzite]

Again, your subjective evaluations of their quality is not the issue. None of those are innovative in how they approach the issue, their focal length, their general features, etc. They are covering the same ground that has been covered endlessly since the beginning of 35mm film. I appreciate that many, most, of us her are Pentax fans - that does not negate the complete lack of innovation over the past few years in their lens lineup.

How do you define "innovation"?

[Docrwm]

How do you define "innovation"?

Not covering the same ground in the same way as everyone else might be a good starting point. The FF lenses show nearly no innovation IMHO. That is entirely different from whether the lenses are good/great/useful but Pentax has a history of being innovative in their lenses (smaller, unique focal lengths, creative solutions optically, etc.) that I no longer see reflected in new offerings.

[Trickortreat]

They have only so much lens development resources. A DFA lens is fully usable on APS-C camera, but a true DA lens is limited on a FF camera, so making a series of DFA lenses may make sense {as long as they aren't as "perfect", large, and pricey as the DFA* 50mm lens}

The issue here is that new sensors demand high quality optics to resolve all those MP and the shift is towards big and heavy. While FF could be perfectly fine with that because they want to squeeze every bit of those MP into their photos, for some of us that went from FF to APS-C its a deal breaker. Dont know what % of Pentaxians went the FF route but it wouldnt be wise to neglect crop only users if there is lot of them left.

[biz-engineer]

The FF lenses show nearly no innovation IMHO. That is entirely different from whether the lenses are good/great/useful but Pentax has a history of being innovative in their lenses (smaller, unique focal lengths, creative solutions optically, etc.) that I no longer see reflected in new offerings.

Yes, that's excellent to realize the new Pentax products aren't so unique anymore: lenses are as big and sometimes even heavier than lenses from other brands. And that's because from day 1, Ricoh immediately worked on providing products that match the common needs of the same market. For example, if you mount a limited lens on a Pentax K1, you still don't have a compact camera, but on the other hand, the lens cost as much as a bigger better more balanced one. Digital camera technology has changed a lot, things that were good to do 20 years ago aren't necessarily the right things to do in 2019. Saving 200gr and 1" on a mirrorless body doesn't make sense when used with a large lens. And using a tiny lens with a thick DSLR body doesn't make sense either. The design of the complete system is what counts to make a compelling product, and being different and not as good as competition is not an advantage. The minimum for product succeed is to be at least like the competition, and then add unique feature on top.

---------- Post added 03-01-19 at 22:05 ----------

Ricoh-Imaging changed over the past years. Investments are for product ranges that have a good option for a good ROI.

Ah ok. So you are more optimistic now than you used to be.

[Kunzite]

Not covering the same ground in the same way as everyone else might be a good starting point. The FF lenses show nearly no innovation IMHO. That is entirely different from whether the lenses are good/great/useful but Pentax has a history of being innovative in their lenses (smaller, unique focal lengths, creative solutions optically, etc.) that I no longer see reflected in new offerings.

Could you be more specific?
Neither smaller nor unique focal lengths are what I'd call innovative, since it was done before I was born.
Creative solutions optically - what would they be? Fresnel optics? The Fresnel lens itself is old, Canon's DO much newer - but let's call it's application in a photographic lens innovative today. This application is limited, likely costly (particularly in the low volumes Pentax must cope with) and I'm not sure it doesn't introduce "new" issues.

We shouldn't complain that Pentax choose to make solid products, instead of pursuing "innovation" for the sake of "innovation".

[biz-engineer]

How do you define "innovation"?

Sometimes you could want to have a squared lens diaphragm just to be different from Canon, Nikon , Sony and Panasonic, but using the same rounded lens diaphragm without any innovation will please the customers more.

[Kunzite]

Yes, that's excellent to realize the new Pentax products aren't so unique anymore: lenses are as big and sometimes even heavier than lenses from other brands.

Small and light lenses are unique... how exactly?

[biz-engineer]

Small and light lenses are unique... how exactly?

DFA150450 isn't small and light, I don't really care if it no more innovative as Canon Nikon and Sony or else, what I care about is the image it delivers, I prefer that it deliver good images as opposed to having issues that other brands don't have so the sake of innovation. The DA 560 is innovation with its telescope design, and that's why I don't have and don't use the DA560.

[RonHendriks1966]

Ah ok. So you are more optimistic now than you used to be.

In some ways yes. They just have to make choices in what directions they want to go with Ricoh-Imaging and what parts they are going to end. This twirling around Q still being alive is nonsense and doesn't help the company. And they still need an investment to move forward.......the question is will Ricoh invest?

[biz-engineer]

And they still need an investment to move forward.......the question is will Ricoh invest?

The camera segment isn't growing anymore, at best it is going to be flat , no company invest more money than they can get back in the short term (i.e not risky capital investment involved), it's going to be the case for all camera makers. I don't believe any camera company is increasing their headcount for new camera developments, they are reassigning the same staff to new projects, there's no new investment. Ricoh Imaging are going to do the same or stop: they keep a minimal team that they have to pay monthly anyway, and with that team decide what kind of product they do. Given market share, Ricoh Imaging won't be smaller, smaller would mean stop, so they are going to do the kind of product that they can do with the staff they have and they are going to take the time they need, regardless of the pace that the market demands. If it happens that it will not be profitable anymore, Ricoh will stop cameras. So, all that means if that new products have to be expensive products, nothing like Pentax Q, Theta, or maybe even apsc, possibly only Full Frame and Medium format. If customers don't want to wait for new high value products, Ricoh will lose more market share and fold the business. If customers can wait for the good products, Ricoh will still make money and they will not stop. That's what my crystal ball says