[BigMackCam]

I wouldn't be surprised if after Pentax finishes everything else, they go back and update the limiteds.

Yes, I can see that as a possibility too. Once the current lens line up strategy has been delivered - or, at least, more of it has been delivered...

[reh321]

So it really isn't the lack of in-lens motors causing it.

They started losing market share, started their slide down while Canon headed for the top, when they went with in-body motors while Canon went with in-lens motors

[Rico]

What are you basing that claim on, may I ask? I assume this is just your perception, and not backed by any data?

Either way, it doesn't matter whether you think modernised FA Limiteds would outsell the new full frame lenses on offer. Nor does it matter if there should be even a shred of truth to that. Because, so far as you and I know, Ricoh isn't planning to refresh those lenses (at least, not yet)... so it's a moot point.

BigMackCam Oh it is not my perception I think they used to call it LBA back in the day. Price point would assure that. For the price of one of the new lenses like the DFA*50 you could buy 2 maybe all three DFA LTDs if they do a DFA28 ƒ2 LTD instead of the FA31. A 28mm has the advantage of also being 49mm filter thread.

[BigMackCam]

BigMackCam Oh it is not my perception I think they used to call it LBA back in the day. Price point would assure that. For the price of one of the new lenses like the DFA*50 you could buy 2 maybe all three DFA LTDs if they do a DFA28 ƒ2 LTD instead of the FA31. A 28mm has the advantage of also being 49mm filter thread.

So, to be clear, it's your opinion - and not based on any data. That's absolutely fine... all I'm saying is, let's present it that way rather than claiming it as irrefutable fact. You don't know that refreshing the lenses would be more profitable, just as I don't know that it wouldn't be. We're simply exchanging opinions, nothing more. To that end, neither of us knows what Ricoh "should" do... only what we think they should do, and that's coloured by our individual views and perceptions.

Here's the thing... Ricoh Imaging has come up with what it believes is the best strategy for the brand at this point in time, and it has done so with the benefit of historical knowledge and financial P&L data going back decades. It will have considered many factors and held many meetings at all levels within the company over many months in defining that strategy, which will include sales and profit targets for all stages of the current plan. Now, maybe your strategy is better (it could be, I guess) and Ricoh's is completely off the mark. But theirs is, at the very least, a fully-fleshed-out business plan, rather than an idea based on perception / opinion / gut feel / LBA (call it what you will). If any of us believes the company hasn't already considered the case for refreshing any and all of its existing lens offerings, we're doing Ricoh a disservice or we don't understand how fundamental strategic planning is to organisations like these.

---

Last edited by BigMackCam; 01-10-2019 at 12:49 PM.

[Rico]

I am sure there were some companies that excelled at making buggy whips until the day they closed their doors for the last time.
Today Pentax excels at bodies, but the lenses are a 'mixed bag' when viewed by the market using current standards.
Canon sells what the market wants. I want all Pentax lenses to be 'world standard' also.

Pentax already makes the highest quality lenses. There is nothing wrong with the standards they use. Pentax lens design set the "world standards" to follow.

[Kunzite]

Where have I said failure? Where have I said any of these new lenses are anything but excellent? You are the one saying they are losing market share. All I did is point out that what you insist Ricoh/Pentax do to stop losing market share they have already been doing for many years now. So it really isn't the lack of in-lens motors causing it.

I'm not saying they are losing market share. I simply don't have the data to really know - if anything they appear to be more or less stable.
What I'm saying is that they lost market share by not moving fast enough in critical moments. Including not introducing in-lens motors fast enough - and putting proper, ring-type motors on their top lenses.

Let this be clear: I'm no Pentax basher. I want them to evolve, and grow if possible - I'm supporting the modern Pentax with my money.

You're gravely mistaken if you think a D FA Limited would cost only 400 euro. The cheapest FA Limited - the 43mm - is double that price; the 31 is quite more expensive at about 1500.
Somewhat less than a D FA*, yes, but nothing like you're imagining.

And once again the in-lens motor (DC or PLM, maybe not ring-type SDM) and the KAF4 electronically controlled aperture module are cheap.

[reh321]

Pentax already makes the highest quality lenses. There is nothing wrong with the standards they use. Pentax lens design set the "world standards" to follow.

Only when they are KAF4.

There is a big difference between the 55-300 PLM lens and its predecessor.

There is a reason why many here have urgently asked that their older camera be updated to use KAF4 lenses.

---

Last edited by reh321; 01-10-2019 at 01:05 PM.

[pete-tarmigan]

They started losing market share, started their slide down while Canon headed for the top, when they went with in-body motors while Canon went with in-lens motors

I think Pentax lost most of their market share in the 1970s when Nikon was the first to provide a complete SLR system for professionals (wide range of lenses, autowinder, motor drive, bulk film backs, flashes, etc.) and used their status as the camera of professionals as a ploy to market to the masses, and when Canon started pouring huge amounts of money into marketing.

[Kunzite]

I wouldn't be surprised if after Pentax finishes everything else, they go back and update the limiteds. But to me, updating the limiteds means new lens coatings, weather sealing, the addition of quick shift, and the introduction of in lens motors for them. Looking at the DA 20-40 limited zoom gives a feel for what could be done. I don't think the size of that lens is increased significantly by having silent auto focus and given a nice DC motor, you should be able to get faster and more accurate auto focus with such a design.

Me neither:
CP+ 2018 Pentax Interview - YouTube

If they'd made the D FA Limiteds first, I'd likely buy those. But it's fine with the D FA*s too.

[Rico]

So, to be clear, it's your opinion - and not based on any data. That's absolutely fine... all I'm saying is, let's present it that way rather than claiming it as irrefutable fact. You don't know that refreshing the lenses would be more profitable, just as I don't know that it wouldn't be. We're simply exchanging opinions, nothing more. To that end, neither of us knows what Ricoh "should" do... only what we think they should do, and that's coloured by our individual views and perceptions.

Here's the thing... Ricoh Imaging has come up with what it believes is the best strategy for the brand at this point in time, and it has done so with the benefit of historical knowledge and financial P&L data going back decades. It will have considered many factors and held many meetings at all levels within the company over many months in defining that strategy, which will include sales and profit targets for all stages of the current plan. Now, maybe your strategy is better (it could be, I guess) and Ricoh's is completely off the mark. But theirs is, at the very least, a fully-fleshed-out business plan, rather than an idea based on perception / opinion / gut feel / LBA (call it what you will). If any of us believes the company hasn't already considered the case for refreshing any and all of its existing lens offerings, we're doing Ricoh a disservice or we don't understand how fundamental strategic planning is to organisations like these.

BigMackCam you can see it as opinion all you want. When Pentax early on stuck to APS-C they developed the DA LTD using the FA LTD's as the template. Three small primes to cover an ideal range of focal lengths. When Ricoh/Pentax decided to go Full Frame their first priority should have been modernizing their film era FA LTD's. If you want to have the opinion some how these lenses may not be profitable I can not help you there but I can assure you if Ricoh/Pentax makes those lenses LBA will take affect. That's not my "gut" feeling. A DFA 43mm ƒ1.7 LTD WR for $550. Who isn't buying that? Any deniers are just kidding themselves. Especially those people who already have an FA 43 LTD. You don't think you need a DFA 43 LTD WR until it exist.

Would you say over the years FA 43 LTD sales have been profitable? But somehow a modernized version would not be just as profitable over time?

[superdave]

i'm getting an experience close to the canon with the k1 mark ii and 150-450. The 300 on that body hunts and is inaccurate.

That being said, try looking at something. Photoshop has a module for fixing motion blur. I found the diagnosis part useful because it pinpointed the cause of softness in some of my photos. It shows a point in the photo oblong if there is motion. Check that out.

See attached picture to illustrate my previous posts:



On the left, ALL the pictures I took when I tried 6DII + 100-400II are perfectly focused on the bird.
On the right, focus is not perfectly on the bird. On a typical session with DA300mm, I delete at least 80% of my photos because of focus problem.

Hopefully I get a few pictures perfectly focused like this one: but its very frustrating...


In regards to the Pentax 150-450mm, I read somewhere that the focus is really slow but if focus is really more precise than DA300 that would be the way to go... I dream of DA300 mkII with a top notch AF motor!... but I know it is just a dream...

[Rondec]

BigMackCam Oh it is not my perception I think they used to call it LBA back in the day. Price point would assure that. For the price of one of the new lenses like the DFA*50 you could buy 2 maybe all three DFA LTDs if they do a DFA28 ƒ2 LTD instead of the FA31. A 28mm has the advantage of also being 49mm filter thread.

Why do you think the updated FA limiteds would be so cheap? Currently the FA 31 is 1100 dollars, FA 77 is 800 dollars, and the FA 43 is 500 dollars. The DFA 50 f1.4 is 1020 -- cheaper than the current price of the FA 31 limited. These are the prices today on B and H photo. My assumption would be that if Pentax "improved" the FA limiteds that they would increase the pricing by 10 to 15 percent. But even if they left it exactly the same, there is no way your statement "For the price of one of the new lenses you could buy two maybe three DFA limiteds..." is true. And no, I do not think that a brand new design of a 28mm f2 lens is going to be significantly cheaper than the FA 31, where the R and D is already paid for.

Honestly, I would like to see Pentax do a lot, but as I said earlier, I would like to see them fill out their current line up before they turn to updating old designs like the FA limiteds or the DA * lenses.

[phoebus]

...In regards to the Pentax 150-450mm, I read somewhere that the focus is really slow but if focus is really more precise than DA300 that would be the way to go... I dream of DA300 mkII with a top notch AF motor!... but I know it is just a dream...

I don't have the DA* 300, but I do have the DA* 200 and DFA 150-450 and can confirm that the DFA:

a. Focuses a lot faster than the DA*

b. It also has a limiter, that can make it even faster still

c. Focus accuracy on the K1 and KP is excellent.

I've not had the K3, but I suspect that both the K1 and KP are better and quicker at precise focus. (In AF-S, I don't use AF-C)

Attached photo is by my wife using KP and DFA 150-450:

[Kunzite]

Honestly, I would like to see Pentax do a lot

If we want them to do a lot, we have to be prepared to pay realistic prices - rather than imagining they'd be much cheaper than one could reasonably expect.

[BigMackCam]

BigMackCam you can see it as opinion all you want.

I do - and not because I'm trying to argue with you for the sake of it (I'm really not, I assure you), but because that's what it is. It's not based on any data - it's your opinion. I'm not even saying that opinion is invalid - I'm just saying that it's your opinion rather than irrefutable fact. If it's not based on data, how can it be anything other than your opinion? Your direct experience of other Pentax owners? OK, what sample size? You see what I'm getting at, I'm sure. I'm not trying to be an oaf here... just clarifying the difference between our opinions and facts

When Ricoh/Pentax decided to go Full Frame their first priority should have been modernizing their film era FA LTD's.

"What Ricoh should do" again. If you'd said, "In my opinion, Pentax would have been better off modernising their film era FA LTDs", I'd have no quarrel with that, whether I agree or disagree. It's the statement, as if of fact, of what Ricoh should do or should have done - when it's an opinion that isn't based on any hard data. It's also the lack of appreciation that Ricoh might actually know what it's doing and why (detailed reasons that we're almost certainly unaware of)... That's where I quibble with you

If you want to have the opinion some how these lenses may not be profitable I can not help you there but I can assure you if Ricoh/Pentax makes those lenses LBA will take affect.

I never said they wouldn't be profitable. All I've said is that I believe there's good justification for the D FA* 50 and D FA*85 as priorities in the range, because they're classic focal lengths for serious full frame work, and that's what the rest of the market offers. Fill those requirements, and you're immediately head-to-head - keeping up with, and perhaps edging ahead (if optical quality and pricing are good enough - which is certainly the case with the D FA*50) from the rest of the market. You're not just catering for existing users (quirky bunch that we are, right? ), but for a wider range of potential users too who may not be with the brand right now. Indeed, my personal opinion (that's all it is, and others may strongly disagree with it) is that the 50 and 85 should be rounded out with 28 and 35mm star lenses too.

Hey, I like the idea of refreshed FA Limiteds. If I'm on full frame Pentax by the time Ricoh has delivered to the current lens road map, I'd probably be one of the folks considering them

A DFA 43mm ƒ1.7 LTD WR for $550. Who isn't buying that? Any deniers are just kidding themselves. Especially those people who already have an FA 43 LTD. You don't think you need a DFA 43 LTD WR until it exist.

Would you say over the years FA 43 LTD sales have been profitable? But somehow a modernized version would not be just as profitable over time?

The day a D FA 43 f/1.7 Limited is released at an official retail price of $550 (fifty bucks lower than the old model) or less, I will disassemble and eat an FA43 Limited, and I'll video the process for our members to enjoy The lens might exist one day (I hope it does!), and I'm sure there'd be plenty of people interested in it. But I suspect they'll need deeper wallets than that... I can't fault your optimism, though

I guess I'd better work on my video techniques, just in case