[normhead]

At least they started to listen a bit!

They always listened..... that's pretty clear from the interviews.
Pentax is completely shaping their strategy on what people are telling them they will buy.

Because they have to sell stuff.

I'd love it if the product ed a 24 ƒ4 or 20 ƒ4, but for some reason, the big spenders these days want big heavily corrected lenses. That's not Pentax's fault.

They are taking the take of looking at what they can sell, not per se filling holes in the lens line-up. Those are all filled by legacy glass.

I wonder if the current legacy glass was at point, where at the same size, aperture and weight, you really can't expect any improvement. If the improvements over legacy are all in the heavily corrected and physically heavy lenses, then that's where they have to go. The 20-35 has many fans and great image thread. Why would Pentax re-invent such a lens?

The simple reason for the 50 being the first new prime for the K-1? Pentax execs were clear, it was the one most asked for with the best chance of improving their bottom line. The fact that many want something else, doesn't necessarily improve their bottom line if a large majority of Pentax users won't buy it. Personally, I wonder about the 85.... is it really the next lens likely to provide income? I'd bet a better than average 70-300 would be better and appeal to more people.

---

Last edited by normhead; 03-16-2019 at 02:10 PM.

[reh321]

In case you want to suggest that any problem related to the "accelerator" unit is imagined just because it had been deployed early but went undetected, the only real take aways from this fact are

• some people capable of detecting the image processing performed by the "accelerator" unit were not interested in cameras like the KP and K-70.

We already know this was essentially true. I was amazed when the initial response to the K-1ii was "nothing to see here - just a 'facelift'."; I had been drooling over the KP, but it didn't fit under my budget, and I hadn't had my used-like-new K-30 very long. Only later did many people understand what the 'accelerator' added to the camera. If I had worked for Pentax I would have felt deceived - from my perspective over here, I saw a slow introduction of the 'accelerator', trying under various real-world settings, K-70 then KP, but it turned out that no one was really testing / evaluating it. Honestly, I've posted more ISO > 25K photos in the three months since I got my KP than I'd been able to find in the past two years; undoubtedly they were out there somewhere, but not easy to find them.

I keep asking about Japanese users .... and keep getting no real response. Do they typically get most of their enjoyment from the process of 'taking' photos in the field or from the process of 'making' photos in PP? I believe the answer to that question will determine where Pentax goes with the 'accelerator' in the future.

[lukulele]

Just a reason why the KP and legacy lenses are relevant to some of us, especially for documentary work and conversion to B/W. Interior was AV setting though I considered flash Exif data attached. Exterior was manual at ISO 200. WPA 1938 Healing Springs school Gym, Ashe County, North Carolina. US

A terrific instrument and the Historical Societies don't care or ask anything about cameras or lenses. Just details(especially construction), date, and location. There's a lot of "Joy" when a building actually found and documented/updated. Appreciate the different views in this thread.

[reh321]

Just a reason why the KP and legacy lenses are relevant to some of us, especially for documentary work and conversion to B/W. Interior was AV setting though I considered flash Exif data attached. Exterior was manual at ISO 200. WPA 1938 Healing Springs school Gym, Ashe County, North Carolina. US

A terrific instrument and the Historical Societies don't care or ask anything about cameras or lenses. Just details(especially construction), date, and location. There's a lot of "Joy" when a building actually found and documented/updated. Appreciate the different views in this thread.

Flash would have created funky shadows, and you would have had issues lighting up that much interior, unless you were willing/able to lug a lot of sophisticated equipment in. This structure was well lit, but a darker structure or few windows or miserable day outside and the 'accelerator' would have been very handy to joyfully handle the required elevated ISO values.

[Rico]

Regarding the wide angle lens, I would prefer a 20mm f4, because the DFA 24-70 already does 24mm, and the DFA 15-30 f2.8 is too large to carry around. On the other hand, good choice of primes comes with doubles: 25mm => 50mm -> 100mm. Personally, I'd prefer 20mm, 40mm and 85mm. I'll skip the 50. Give me a 20mm f4 and 85 1.4.

The wide angle won't be 20mm the Ultra Wide Angle will hopefully be the 20mm ƒ4. The large aperture wide angle should be a 28mm ƒ2. 28mm focal length is ideal for both FF and APS-C. 24mm is to close to 20mm.

Using APS-C I carried the M-20, A28ƒ2 and the DA40LTD. For FF I reduced the bag to the A28 and reluctantly replaced the DA40LTD with the FA43LTD. I would love a small DFA20 ƒ4 AW to replace the M20.

[tibbitts]

If you are fortunate enough to get one that was built correctly. The design is good but manufacturing is inconsistent. I had to return 2 bad copies. I'm not an outlier; there are many reports of decentered lenses.

Yes but there are many reports of decentered Pentax lenses too - and not just from me (not that I haven't been responsible for quite a few.)

[MMVIII]

The wide angle won't be 20mm the Ultra Wide Angle will hopefully be the 20mm ƒ4. The large aperture wide angle should be a 28mm ƒ2. 28mm focal length is ideal for both FF and APS-C. 24mm is to close to 20mm.

Using APS-C I carried the M-20, A28ƒ2 and the DA40LTD. For FF I reduced the bag to the A28 and reluctantly replaced the DA40LTD with the FA43LTD. I would love a small DFA20 ƒ4 AW to replace the M20.

24mm f1.4 as a DFA*-lens makes a lot of sense. This is THE focal lenght for nightscapes, together with the astrotracer this would be the ultimate setup that no other system can provide. It is faster than the DFA* 24-70 f2.8 and therefore covers different needs, I don't see a problem with this overlap. It is also significantly wider than the 35 and the limited 31.

20mm f4 would be also perfect. This indeed can be smaller as an alternative to the DFA* 15-30 f2.8 for landscape and architecture shooting where large aperture is not such a thing.

I would not see many options for synergies of DFA and DA at these focal lenghts. Here dedicated DA lenses can be much smaller. Which is not so much the case in tele-zooms, where there won't be much difference, thus not expecting any dedicated DA-telezooms anymore. And also the DFA* 50 f1.4 is a useful DA-lens, taking the role of a classic fast short portrait tele (the 85s).

The only thing I would wish for now would be a renewed DA 15 f4, as the wide angle is missing a prime with some updated optics for landscape travel. The DA* 11-18 f2.8 might be impressive and an absolutely necessary part of the portfolio, but it would not hurt to have a 15 up to this task at the 24+MP sensors...

[krazykat]

The wide angle won't be 20mm the Ultra Wide Angle will hopefully be the 20mm ƒ4. The large aperture wide angle should be a 28mm ƒ2. 28mm focal length is ideal for both FF and APS-C. 24mm is to close to 20mm.

I respectfully disagree. Every mm becomes more important as you get wider. A 28mm would be closer to 31mm than a 24mm would be to 20mm.

[monochrome]

If Japan is half the market, as is often repeated here, what Japan wants, Japan gets. ROW probably doesn’t have enough regular buyers to justify anything unless it will also sell in Japan.

That’s why Tanaka-san’s questions and comments are so important.

[Jeff]

If Japan is half the market, as is often repeated here, what Japan wants, Japan gets. ROW probably doesn’t have enough regular buyers to justify anything unless it will also sell in Japan.

That’s why Tanaka-san’s questions and comments are so important.

Has anyone looked into what Japan wants?

I don't read or speak Japanese so I cannot embark upon this research myself.

If so, then that may give some forward guidance as to what Ricoh is planning in accordance with what it thinks will sell in that market.

Any thoughts? (beyond mere wishes!)

[RobA_Oz]

I respectfully disagree. Every mm becomes more important as you get wider. A 28mm would be closer to 31mm than a 24mm would be to 20mm.

I agree with you on this. The FA31 Limited is probably the main reason there won’t be a large aperture D FA 28mm for some time, if at all.

On the difference in the FoV, I remember clearly looking at the first 24mm slides I shot, and wondering why I’d hung onto the 28 for so long.

[monochrome]

Has anyone looked into what Japan wants?

I don't read or speak Japanese so I cannot embark upon this research myself.

If so, then that may give some forward guidance as to what Ricoh is planning in accordance with what it thinks will sell in that market.

Any thoughts? (beyond mere wishes!)

How much do you want to bet that in Japan, aside from a traditional aesthetic favoring harmony and beauty in composition (and equipment that produces images favoring more traditional aesthetics) Pentax users balance receiving joy from the actual process of picture taking with the final result - the picture making.

I imagine Pentax knows a lot more about what their customers as a group want than we do, having a more limited understanding and personal biases.

There are members here who have insight and actual knowledge.

[Merv-O]

How much do you want to bet that in Japan, aside from a traditional aesthetic favoring harmony and beauty in composition (and equipment that produces images favoring more traditional aesthetics) Pentax users balance receiving joy from the actual process of picture taking with the final result - the picture making.

I imagine Pentax knows a lot more about what their customers as a group want than we do, having a more limited understanding and personal biases.

There are members here who have insight and actual knowledge.

Interesting take...I think RICOH should also vertically integrate their cameras with their imaging division: Pentax takes the photo...the PP and printing are done on the RICOH pro printer. I currently use a Canon Pro 100 (I print 8x10's and 13x19 (A3+) prints) and it renders beautifully and.accurately. I have also used Epson, not bad for personal/light pro work either. RICOH makes copiers/printers: Why not put vertical integration on the "road map" too?

A brief KP comment: I love KP's power and IQ, but I am disappointed it received a lower end shutter (100K) that only gives it a 50% shelf life vs.the K-3ii it allegedly succeeded. That is unacceptable to me and perhaps was the reason it has been discounted. Everything else is Grade A.

[normhead]

allegedly

Alleged by some, refute by others.
I assume the 100,000k shutter is in keeping with the design specs of the other components used.

[normhead]

allegedly

Alleged by some, refuted by others.
I assume the 100,000k shutter is in keeping with the design specs of the other components used.