[gazonk]

if they had made it f/1.4 instead of f/4.5-6.3, it would have fit in neither my budget nor my bag

*trying very hard to imagine what that lens would look like*

[KX-Digital]

Glad they continue the SLR K-mount line, and especially going smaller with the KP (still too big compared to a fullframe MX or LX).
Therefore i hope they will bring out a mirrorless too. Preferably fullframe like the Sony A7-line but in design more like the Fuji XT-3. Fullframe because of adapting my lenses with a K-mount LA-EA4 equivalent to the new mirrorless mount but... in the end the size of the sensor is less important than the size of the viewfinder, which is too small on all aps-c d-slr's regardless of brand. Having an LA-AE4 and LA-AE2 equivalents would take away the need to bring out native lenses in short term and actually, because sensors need more telecentric designs, most native lenses would be just like slr-lenses, just with a longer tube.

Mirrorless is better than an slr for adapting lenses (e.g. Canon FD, Minolta MD, Konica AR) but mostly for video purposes. A dedicated EVF viewfinder is essential though which is where the K-01 failed, next to it being too early as technology wasn't really ready for it then. An alternative, as for the video part, would be to adopt the pellicle mirror of the SLT line but then it will still be difficult to reduce the size of the camera and the FFD would remain the same.

[bdery]

Until you see the images they produce. But I do love the little ones too.

Lenses like the DA and FA Limited show that you can get wonderful results in smaller packages. The 43mm is my most-used prime, and the 77 produces portraits that I haven't seen seriously overshadowed by other lenses.

I've just finished testing several 50s, among which the new D FA*, and while that lens has little to no optical weaknesses, it's not THAT much better. This level of quality is not always required, and lugging it around doesn't make things "joyful".

When visiting Disney World, I used mainly the K-1 with the 43 attached to my backpack's shoulder strap via a Capture Clip. I couldn't have done that with the D FA* 50.

[thibs]

Those were sceewdriven lenses and with usual dose of vigneting. 'old' lenses.

You can't have everything....

[monochrome]

Well, whenever I lug the Fat Fifty around, what I see on the LCD brings me joy - not even considering after I work on the files

[monochrome]

Glad they continue the SLR K-mount line, and especially going smaller with the KP (still too big compared to a fullframe MX or LX).
Therefore i hope they will bring out a mirrorless too. Preferably fullframe like the Sony A7-line but in design more like the Fuji XT-3. Fullframe because of adapting my lenses with a K-mount LA-EA4 equivalent to the new mirrorless mount but... in the end the size of the sensor is less important than the size of the viewfinder, which is too small on all aps-c d-slr's regardless of brand. Having an LA-AE4 and LA-AE2 equivalents would take away the need to bring out native lenses in short term and actually, because sensors need more telecentric designs, most native lenses would be just like slr-lenses, just with a longer tube.

Mirrorless is better than an slr for adapting lenses (e.g. Canon FD, Minolta MD, Konica AR) but mostly for video purposes. A dedicated EVF viewfinder is essential though which is where the K-01 failed, next to it being too early as technology wasn't really ready for it then. An alternative, as for the video part, would be to adopt the pellicle mirror of the SLT line but then it will still be difficult to reduce the size of the camera and the FFD would remain the same.

The thing is, none of these ‘benefits’ has any utility for me. I just don’t see any value to them. So ‘better for’ is subjective, not conclusive.

[Kunzite]

I'm tired of mirrorless fans explaining how EVF-induced headaches makes for a much superior camera.

[reh321]

I'm tired of mirrorless fans explaining how EVF-induced headaches makes for a much superior camera.

Non sequitur.

They don't get headaches from looking in the viewfinder.

[Kunzite]

The trouble is, they explain how the mirrorless is better for me.

[reh321]

The trouble is, they explain how the mirrorless is better for me.

No, they say what works for them. and try to apply that to you.
Maybe you're the only one who doesn't do that sort of thing.

but none of this discussion about EVF has anything to do with what Kimio Tanaka said about lenses,
nor does it have anything to do with any near-term products from Ricoh.

[Andrea K]

I would enjoy a new 24-90(or 105) f/4.0 (67mm), a new 20mm f/2,8, a new 85mm f/1,4, a new 300mm f/2,8 with dedicated multipliers with support also for screwdriver AF, a new 200mm f/4.0 macro, a new 70-200mm f/4.0, a new 645 with FF sensor, a new DA* 16-50 (CA fixed), a new DA* 50-135 (ring SDM), a new top-end APS-C body.

RICOH please put money on PENTAX.

[sungibr]

Now the DA*11-18 is out in the world and kicking goals, an update of the DA*16-50 would be most welcome. It's just not quite up to the optical standard (at the wide end at least) of the other DA* zooms, and the SDM needs to go. Given the new ultra-wide zoom covers 16-18, I wonder if making the standard zoom 18-50 would improve it optically and make it more compact. Is internal zoom feasible?

I quite like mine 16-50. Use an abuse it a lot. Like the sharpness, but CA is really ugly at wide settings. But I don't think turn it a 18-50 would cure those optical problems. I'm sure Ricoh can design one 16-50 with a much better control over aberrations.

Besides that, 16-something is an ideal range to a standard pro-grade zoom lens, and I think it wouldn't dissonates all that much overlaping with the new 11-18.

But if all they could do was updating its design with a much stronger body and better af, I think that won't be all that bad. After all, the problem that really turn people away from the original DA*16-50 was the bad SDM. And as soon as we discovered that screwdrive conversion hack, suddenly the lens got its value back.

[RonHendriks1966]

RICOH please put money on PENTAX.

I don't think Ricoh is going to waist money on Pentax. Not in this market.

[BigMackCam]

I don't think Ricoh is going to waist money on Pentax. Not in this market.

It's not about "wasting" money on Pentax, Ron. It's about spending enough on it to keep the brand relevant to, and retain, its many supporters, and attract some more along the way. I'm sure Ricoh feels its doing that already, but there's never any harm in us saying what we'd like, even if we need to be realistic in our expectations given the market...

[robbiec]

I don't think Ricoh is going to waist money on Pentax. Not in this market.

I don't see any waste in Ricoh's strategy. They are keeping in the game, they have a niche carved out and the business model is to keep a core set of what 25,000 global customers? spending between €2K and €5K a year on enhancements to the system they like and take 20% to 30% margin which they can use for R&D to keep ticking over. They don't waste on advertising, they don't waste on complicated supply chain, they don't waste on loss leaders. The head count is probably minimal too, send in some engineers from the parent firm on secondment to learn how to innovate with limited budget and build some cross business communication channels. If I was in a leadership role in Ricoh, I'd use Pentax as a finishing school for those marked for success. A play area / training ground.
Brief to some hotshot manager or engineer coming up the ranks, you've an awful lot of automy, limited budget, there is a renowned history / culture, you're up against companies with factors of whatever against you in size, advertising clout, engineering resource, R&D budget... Show us what you can do.