Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Closed Thread
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-12-2022, 05:34 AM   #316
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 7,001
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I really think the K-01 was a one off camera. It was a camera that was far more about appearance over function. I always thought of it as a K-30 without a viewfinder and significantly more limited specs. I think that Pentax believed that the styling by Marc Newson would allow it to charge a premium for a camera that wasn't really that great in terms of functionality.

The camera had a buffer of 1 RAW image (you could force it to do three by doing a multi-exposure burst), very slow auto focus, and a lot of other limitations. The idea that they were going to charge three hundred dollars more than the K-30 for a camera that had less usefulness was a little silly, but I guess they thought people who liked the styling would pay a premium for it.
Yeah, wouldn't have been an easy sell at the same price but significantly higher....


Last edited by thibs; 10-12-2022 at 05:57 AM.
10-12-2022, 05:47 AM - 1 Like   #317
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 27,603
QuoteOriginally posted by thibs Quote
Yeah, wouldn't have been an essay sell at the same price but significantly higher....
I bought one (still own it) but, I bought it when the price dropped to 225 dollars (it was a bit more with the 40mm lens). I like the camera as a landscape camera -- basically paired with a DA 15 limited shot at f8 with hyperfocal distance set. Otherwise, it is not easily usable.
10-12-2022, 06:01 AM   #318
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Eerbeek
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,850
QuoteOriginally posted by UncleVanya Quote
I tend to agree but they wouldn’t gain two things that mirrorless designs normally give: short flange focal distance (reduces length, removes retro focal need on wide angles) and an incentive to customers to buy all new lenses. This last one benefits companies not consumers. I think a dslr flange distance mirrorless design would have weak appeal but perhaps if ff it would appeal to a certain set of manual focus lens users and lightweight minimalist ff users.
Yes, I'd agree. I do wonder though whether the "retro focal need on wide angles" is still an issue with current designs - in part because of added computational powers, in part given the fact that many mirrorless designs have barrel faults that need to be corrected by software in drastic manner.
10-12-2022, 10:04 AM - 1 Like   #319
Pentaxian
Fogel70's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,062
QuoteOriginally posted by Smolk Quote
Yes, I'd agree. I do wonder though whether the "retro focal need on wide angles" is still an issue with current designs - in part because of added computational powers, in part given the fact that many mirrorless designs have barrel faults that need to be corrected by software in drastic manner.
I think this is just a design choice because optical distortion correction is not as important on mirrorless cameras as on DSLR. On DSLR they need to make lenses with optical correction so the image in the OVF is the same as the final image captured by the camera. On mirrorless the distortion can be corrected in software both for viewfinder and image.

One solution is not necessarily better than the other. With optical correction there is a risk that it lead to other optical problems that need correction.


Last edited by Fogel70; 10-13-2022 at 04:01 AM.
10-12-2022, 11:16 AM   #320
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Madaboutpix's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Rhine-Westphalia
Posts: 1,426
QuoteOriginally posted by Smolk Quote
Yes, I'd agree. I do wonder though whether the "retro focal need on wide angles" is still an issue with current designs - in part because of added computational powers, in part given the fact that many mirrorless designs have barrel faults that need to be corrected by software in drastic manner
QuoteOriginally posted by Fogel70 Quote
I think this is just a design choose because optical distortion correction is not as important on mirrorless cameras as on DSLR. On DSLR they need to make lenses with optical correction so the image in the OVF is the same as the final image captured by the camera. On mirrorless the distortion can be corrected in software both for viewfinder and image.

The need of a retrofocus design with wideangle lenses for (D)SLRs stems directly from the longer flange focal distance required by the mirror box. In fact, this kind of lens design doesn't make the correction of barrel distortion easier, rather it makes it more difficult than in shorter-flange-distance lenses for mirrorless cameras.

If in doubt, check out the following:

Retrofocus - Camera-wiki.org - The free camera encyclopedia

Flange focal distance - Camera-wiki.org - The free camera encyclopedia

It would be interesting to know for sure if the latest Pentax ultra-wideangle design, the DFA21 Limited, still follows the retrofocus principle. Unfortunately, I know too little about lens design to be able to tell from the graphic representation.

Last edited by Madaboutpix; 10-12-2022 at 11:34 AM. Reason: Nuance.
10-12-2022, 12:50 PM - 1 Like   #321
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2015
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,185
QuoteOriginally posted by Madaboutpix Quote
The need of a retrofocus design with wideangle lenses for (D)SLRs stems directly from the longer flange focal distance required by the mirror box. In fact, this kind of lens design doesn't make the correction of barrel distortion easier, rather it makes it more difficult than in shorter-flange-distance lenses for mirrorless cameras.

If in doubt, check out the following:

Retrofocus - Camera-wiki.org - The free camera encyclopedia

Flange focal distance - Camera-wiki.org - The free camera encyclopedia

It would be interesting to know for sure if the latest Pentax ultra-wideangle design, the DFA21 Limited, still follows the retrofocus principle. Unfortunately, I know too little about lens design to be able to tell from the graphic representation.
The short way to manage it is that all wide-angle (35mm or wider) K-mount lenses are retrofocus designs...

The flange distance forces them to be... so yes, the DFA 21mm is a retrofocus lens.

-Eric
10-12-2022, 12:57 PM - 2 Likes   #322
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 28,171
Not all is rosy about non-retrofocus wide angle designs. They come with steeper angles to the sensor plane which requires more complex micro lens designs.

10-13-2022, 10:21 AM   #323
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 15,903
QuoteOriginally posted by Zygonyx Quote
I'd prefer them to release the equ. 100mm Q system macro lens...
The Q was a non starter from the very beginning.I recall reading that the primary market was tweenaged girls. I don't know if that's true or not but my granddaughter adores my old one that I gave her.
She fits that profile perfectly, being 11 when I gave it to her.

I think people who want a rebirth of the Q are dreaming in technicolor. Ricoh isn't going to restrict it.
10-13-2022, 10:27 AM - 1 Like   #324
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 15,903
QuoteOriginally posted by lemono Quote
Q is the spirit inheritor of Auto110. Although it was abandoned for market reasons, it is undoubtedly one of the important systems of Pentax.
I always think that this is beyond doubt.
The auto 110 system was dropped for the same reason the Q system was dropped. They were both products without a market.
10-13-2022, 10:30 AM   #325
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Central Florida
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,033
Ummm... A moderator note:

So what was the thread topic again?
10-13-2022, 10:44 AM   #326
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 27,603
QuoteOriginally posted by gatorguy Quote
Ummm... A moderator note:

So what was the thread topic again?
I think we are talking about a new 100 macro that has less fringing.
10-13-2022, 10:45 AM   #327
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 15,903
QuoteOriginally posted by UncleVanya Quote
I tend to agree but they wouldn’t gain two things that mirrorless designs normally give: short flange focal distance (reduces length, removes retro focal need on wide angles) and an incentive to customers to buy all new lenses. This last one benefits companies not consumers. I think a dslr flange distance mirrorless design would have weak appeal but perhaps if ff it would appeal to a certain set of manual focus lens users and lightweight minimalist ff users.
This being the problem. Pentax would have needed to introduce a new line of lenses designed for short registration. The money wasn't there.
Pentax started bleeding money in the late 1980s and never stopped it. They were late to every party from the start of marketable AF onwards and ended up being the camera industry's wallflower.
The MZ-D, had they gone ahead with it, would have killed them the same way Kyocera died on Dalsa Hill. Had it worked, we might still have a Pentax Corp rather than a Pentax division. It was a Hail Mary that was short of the intended receiver.
Water under the bridge.
The myriad problems with the K5 signaled to me what Hoya was doing. They didn't want the camera division and so set about to make it look profitable on paper to make it acceptable to a buyer, and they sold the division to Ricoh for what can only be described as a fire sale price.
Heck, we could probably have pooled our resources here and come up with the funds needed to buy Pentax from Hoya.
The point being, Pentax has not had major R&D funding for decades. A short registration mirrorless system has never been on the table.
10-13-2022, 11:29 AM   #328
Pentaxian
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,125
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
This being the problem. Pentax would have needed to introduce a new line of lenses designed for short registration. The money wasn't there.
Pentax started bleeding money in the late 1980s and never stopped it. They were late to every party from the start of marketable AF onwards and ended up being the camera industry's wallflower.
The MZ-D, had they gone ahead with it, would have killed them the same way Kyocera died on Dalsa Hill. Had it worked, we might still have a Pentax Corp rather than a Pentax division. It was a Hail Mary that was short of the intended receiver.
Water under the bridge.
The myriad problems with the K5 signaled to me what Hoya was doing. They didn't want the camera division and so set about to make it look profitable on paper to make it acceptable to a buyer, and they sold the division to Ricoh for what can only be described as a fire sale price.
Heck, we could probably have pooled our resources here and come up with the funds needed to buy Pentax from Hoya.
The point being, Pentax has not had major R&D funding for decades. A short registration mirrorless system has never been on the table.
No, they didn’t need yet another mount.
I believe they could have purchased an EVF from Epson, then added it to the K-01.
Canon and Sony persisted with their MILC designs;
Pentax simply decided “MILC is not for us”.
There is nothing in MILC which inherently makes a new mount necessary, as the K-01 demonstrates. Pentax made up their minds, and that was it.

Pentax lacked vision with the K-01 just as they did with the “Q”.
They never really tried {outside Japan, at least} to sell the “Q” to the general market.

Last edited by reh321; 10-13-2022 at 11:35 AM.
10-13-2022, 12:17 PM   #329
Pentaxian
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,125
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I think we are talking about a new 100 macro that has less fringing.
So, how much of a market exists amongst us, amongst more dedicated users?

How many of us are sufficiently bothered by fringing that we would purchase a new one?
How many of us would be attracted by a decent in-lens focus motor?
If they add a KAF4, would that affect its draw?

I’ll start off by saying that I would be attracted by neither ‘macro’, nor a F/2.8 lens, nor an in-lens motor - I have a 55-300 PLM, and that alone meets my needs - I don’t make any use of pure ‘macro’ enough to spend my money on one, as is evident by my seeing “100 mm” and not seeing “macro” until it was specifically pointed out to me.
10-13-2022, 12:19 PM   #330
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Central Florida
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,033
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I think we are talking about a new 100 macro that has less fringing.
Ah, thanks! That was it.

So moderator note number 2:

Let's get the thread back on track. If there's no more to discuss about it feel free to start a new thread where the off-topic discussion can be continued.
Closed Thread

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
100mm, aberrations, af, background, design, dfa, elements, fa, glass, hd, heresy, lens, lenses, limiteds, lot, macro, mm macro lens, pentax, pentax 100 mm, pentax news, pentax rumors, post, roadmap, size, smc, step, version, wr
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Updated roadmap October 2021 VictorDA Pentax News and Rumors 101 12-17-2021 11:37 AM
Updated Roadmap - May 2020 FozzFoster Pentax News and Rumors 43 05-20-2020 10:49 AM
roadmap updated sculptor666 Pentax News and Rumors 31 02-03-2019 04:03 PM
Updated roadmap for 645 mount ogl Pentax Medium Format 9 09-26-2012 12:00 PM
New lenses roadmap, updated 22/09/2008 (pdf) cateto Pentax News and Rumors 55 09-28-2008 06:35 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:37 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top