[Kunzite]

Then the whole discussion is moot.

The "probably" is moot?

That hasn't been working all that well for Pentax, if we're honest.

They're still alive, aren't they?

The counter-argument to that is that the user base is about 15x larger (possibly more) for Sony than for Pentax. So if you draw just a tiny bit of Sony users to Pentax, you've increased your lenses sales significantly.

That sounds wrong.
It's sort of like the Drake's equation: you start from a large number, but only a small part of them are using adapters, and only a part of those would want to adapt Pentax lenses, and only a part of those - if any! - would buy new Pentax lenses just to adapt them on their Sony camera. Instead of buying a native Sony, and every Pentax lens has a Sony equivalent.
It's not a counter-argument unless you can explain how it would work.

Pentax is Ricoh's way of trying to turn a profit.

I'd say it's not all about profit, although profit is how a company survives on the longer term. Surely, there are other businesses with higher margins.
But Ricoh wants to be in the consumer camera business, and they want Pentax to continue. And it doesn't looks like this is the most profitable course of action.

But many glaring holes.

Which are?

Again, seeing the number of users in both camps, and the drainage of Pentax users (we are decreasing, not increasing), doing nothing is a sure way to see the brand dwindle and vanish. Working in R&D myself, I have a fairly good idea of the cost involved in developping a product. There's a reason there is no successor to the K-1 ii.

Wow, wow, wow. You're very sure about things you know nothing about.

[dgcom]

Sony has more choices

But many glaring holes.

And many of these holes are being filled by Sugma/Tamron/Samyang rather quickly now. This wasn't the case 3 years ago - when I moved to Sony and really needed to use my great Pentax lens - because there wasn't anything comparable... Not anymore though.
But still - look at Sigma's model - they still sell their own cameras, but they also make lens - not just they own, but for several other mounts and they do have an adapter which targets their own market - MC-11...
Why Pentax can't do the same?

[Smolk]

Why Pentax can't do the same?

That's a really interesting suggestion, but there's one issue: it would have to be mirrorless, hence in addition to DSLR designs, and that's a disadvantage.

[PiDicus Rex]

Just ran a quick test of the Pentax FA 85/1.4 lens with the Monster adapter on Sony A7R4. Works OK, focus is surprisingly quick, the focusing noise is a bit odd but not scary; initially the adapter (or the camera, I could not tell, it was coming from the front) emitted some very odd and slightly frightening noises, like a small robot dying and whining.. but when I found my glasses and I adjusted the exposure to something more reasonable (it was trying to expose for like 5 seconds or more), the noises stopped and all was good.
I guess I am not going to buy the ROKINON 85mm F1.4 for Sony.. ($370 for the next 4 hours on Amazon). Planning to test more lenses tomorrow..

FA "*" 85?
I'm hoping the FA* Zooms are supported - the 80-200 2.8 is listed, I have the 28-70 2.8 already.

[akptc]

Yep, I forgot to add the star *

[bdery]

I'd say it's not all about profit, although profit is how a company survives on the longer term. Surely, there are other businesses with higher margins.
But Ricoh wants to be in the consumer camera business, and they want Pentax to continue. And it doesn't looks like this is the most profitable course of action.

Thinking any company will remain in a non-profitable business just because they "want to be in that business" as you put it is not sustainable, and no board of directors would condone it.

Wow, wow, wow. You're very sure about things you know nothing about.

That both inaccurate and insulting. "Nothing" is a powerful and blanket word, and has no place here. I know more than "nothing" and your judging my knowledge without knowing ME is, to say the least, cheap. Instead of discussing ideas, you've tried to turn this into a discussion about individuals. I won'T participate anymore.

look at Sigma's model - they still sell their own cameras, but they also make lens - not just they own, but for several other mounts and they do have an adapter which targets their own market - MC-11...
Why Pentax can't do the same?

Sorta mu point, well put.

That's a really interesting suggestion, but there's one issue: it would have to be mirrorless, hence in addition to DSLR designs, and that's a disadvantage.

It wouldn't "have to". A hypothetical adapter cold bridge DSLR designs with mirorless. Some would argue that lenses would be unnecessarily big, but the mirrorless promise of miniature lenses has never materialized, except maybe for Fuji's heavily corrected designs.

[Unregistered User 8]

Hi folks, please drop the temperature of some of the discussion, and agree to disagree in a civil way. It is OK for somebody to have a different opinion.

If the bickering continues, the moderation team will have no other option than to give thread bans.........at a minimum.

Please respect other's views. Thanks.

[Kunzite]

Thinking any company will remain in a non-profitable business just because they "want to be in that business" as you put it is not sustainable, and no board of directors would condone it.

Well, of course, but I never claimed anything that extreme. I merely said that the other extreme (it being all about profit) isn't true.
Don't we agree on this?

That both inaccurate and insulting. "Nothing" is a powerful and blanket word, and has no place here. I know more than "nothing" and your judging my knowledge without knowing ME is, to say the least, cheap. Instead of discussing ideas, you've tried to turn this into a discussion about individuals. I won'T participate anymore.

It wasn't meant as an insult, and I could have put it in a more diplomatic way.
This was about this part:

there is no successor to the K-1 ii.

[repaap]

I'd say that many who are actually using Sony already, would propably see this idea of Pentax following Sigma/Tamron footsteps as big win. But as said by so many others, there are already third party options and there will be even more. They actually are cheaper than Pentax lenses are. if you'd add the cost of pentax lens and adapter to be able to use those too with your Sony, or what ever brand, even Sigma cameras, how would you think this will turn out to be?

would you really care anymore.

I'd actually want to hear an honest ansver.

There is great lenses which Pentax has made. They wanted to build them for professionals(DFA* lenses) to be interested of pentax as option. Same could be said from G master and top end RF and Z lenses. they are there to lure in customers.


what is more in lines of this Sigma thing, is L-mount alliance, actually. Also this Sigma FP is sitting at there.


Now, here it is, time for honest discussion then. Given prices of DFA* lenses, how would you think it would go.


There is also Tokina version of DFA*50/1.4, but adapter would go around that route.

Given that performance with Pentax cameras is not the same as it was 3 years a go(where actually K-1 is sitting still), we should compare it from there.

[Smolk]

It wouldn't "have to". A hypothetical adapter cold bridge DSLR designs with mirorless. Some would argue that lenses would be unnecessarily big, but the mirrorless promise of miniature lenses has never materialized,

I thought of that, but I guess it's hard to counter the hype in this regard, by which I mean: the reviews would always say the lens is bigger than it needed to be. And lens design with retrofocus may not be cheaper. But I wouldn't mind Ricoh going this route if they see a serious opportunity here, after careful consideration of what happens to their own bodies as a line.
I agree that smaller MILC lenses did not materialize, it's one of the reasons that I did not fall for a AR7 years ago. I'd rather have a substantial body when the lenses are substantial too.

[repaap]

I thought of that, but I guess it's hard to counter the hype in this regard, by which I mean: the reviews would always say the lens is bigger than it needed to be. And lens design with retrofocus may not be cheaper. But I wouldn't mind Ricoh going this route if they see a serious opportunity here, after careful consideration of what happens to their own bodies as a line.
I agree that smaller MILC lenses did not materialize, it's one of the reasons that I did not fall for a AR7 years ago. I'd rather have a substantial body when the lenses are substantial too.

For me smaller size did mean cramp in my fingers and I have realtively small hands(medium size?). This is propably why MILC system did actually come from small to almost the same size. Because of usability and handling.

[Smolk]

For me smaller size did mean cramp in my fingers and I have realtively small hands(medium size?). This is propably why MILC system did actually come from small to almost the same size. Because of usability and handling.

So the real advantage, if any, of a MILC is low light EVF (I have no experience but little trouble believing that, it's why Canon can bring out relatively slow long tele-lenses) and apparently AF?
This is not to wage a war of words on EVF/OVF but just to get the picture clear.

[repaap]

So the real advantage, if any, of a MILC is low light EVF (I have no experience but little trouble believing that, it's why Canon can bring out relatively slow long tele-lenses) and apparently AF?
This is not to wage a war of words on EVF/OVF but just to get the picture clear.

I do actually have Panasonic S5 (mainly for video purposes), as well as K-3III. I have to say that it is the real advantage, IF AF can work. Between these two, K-3III can focus where with Panasonic, really need that MF assist even in 'normal' light, so it is good, and you need that aid. Not sure how canon/sony is, as they have better AF.


That said, it is painfull to look through quite bright EVF in dark. You'll loose your darkvision from other eye. This is how I have experienced that and I usually change over to that flippy thing.

[UncleVanya]

From my perspective:

1) I don’t see Pentax as benefitting or losing in this. I don’t expect Non-Pentax shooters to flock to this adapter to access any current Pentax lens. As good as the DFA* line is, it gets little press and is not optimized for a Sony body (built in Correction profiles, oss, etc.).

2) freaks like me with multiple systems and lots of glass are the target niche market. It’s useful to be able to leverage investment across many systems.

3) the weight and size of a dslr lens plus adapter typically is an inconvenient factor that isn’t a deal breaker but reduces the commercial appeal.

4) unique to Pentax lenses like the fa 31 are the greatest draw.

[bdery]

after careful consideration of what happens to their own bodies as a line.

This is necessary, 100% agreed. Anyway this discussion is just conjecture. I do see a lot of interest on Sony groups for that adapter, not just from current Pentax users.

I agree that smaller MILC lenses did not materialize

The only true exception I see in FF is the Sony A7C (which is why I bought it). Some lenses are decently small, making it a small total combo, but as soon as you want some reach, lenses get big anyway.

4) unique to Pentax lenses like the fa 31 are the greatest draw.

Absolutely.