[RiceHigh]

I have though about that but why call it D-FA645 then? Why not DA645? For the K-mount D-FA means full frame. It should mean the same for 645......

The 645D has a DFA645 standard lens:-

RiceHigh's Pentax Blog: 645D Confirmed - 2010

I think they have done the right thing this time for making a Full Frame lens and planning for the future. Pentax have learnt from their mistake of investing solely in DA lens on their 135, by which they could find no way to come back to larger sensor format unless they re-build their lens system - which involves huge effort and time.

And, it is always desirable to shorten the back focus distance if they meant to contract the image circle of a lens system:-

RiceHigh's Pentax Blog: Sensor Size of the 645D (and More Technical Talks on DSLR Form Factors)

But since the 645D is compatible with all the old film 645 lens, it is a wise act again to continue to keep this form factor, for both the image circle and the back focus register distance.

[RiceHigh]

Disagree. D-FA means FF. I'll bet that if there will be FF D-FA lenses in the future they will not have aperture rings. Beesides, whats the point with cropped lenses called D-FA's, identical to DA's, but with aperture rings?
For what its worth (a lot I think), the D-FA645 lenses have no aperture ring but it is still called D-FA.

The sensors are cropped, which is not necessary meant that the lenses are cropped, with their image circle.

[RiceHigh]

I'm not going to read all the posts but just dropped by to say...

FAKE!

So, what is the proof for the "fake"? :-)

[mattdm]

So, what is the proof for the "fake"? :-)

Wait, we have to prove negatives now?

I think it falls under Carl Sagan's saying — not the one about billions and billions, but ""Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

The f/1.0 lens seems incredibly implausible, and the D-FA lenses unlikely, and altogether it seems to be someone's idea of a dream lineup. (Although, dammit, they apparently can't even make up stuff about the DA★ 30mm I want. ).

Plus the mismatched lens pictures are suspicious — the "it's a placeholder" theory doesn't hold much water, since previous roadmaps have been released with no pictures at all for certain future lenses.

So given all that, it's probably fake.

[mutedphotos]

Wait, we have to prove negatives now?

I think it falls under Carl Sagan's saying — not the one about billions and billions, but ""Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Referencing Carl Sagan in a photography argument?? Love it!

[RiceHigh]

Wait, we have to prove negatives now?

I think it falls under Carl Sagan's saying — not the one about billions and billions, but ""Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

If Seeing is Believing, almost all "unseeable", rare and strange things on Earth should not be believed! ;-D

Any proof for the non-existence of ghost, UFO, etc.? LOL..

The f/1.0 lens seems incredibly implausible, and the D-FA lenses unlikely, and altogether it seems to be someone's idea of a dream lineup. (Although, dammit, they apparently can't even make up stuff about the DA★ 30mm I want. ).

I guess they are not "can't make up", but just don't do it! Now. As the marketing situation has changed. Its the totally right thing for them to plan for Full Frame, which possibly is still the future of those mainstream DSLRs.

Plus the mismatched lens pictures are suspicious — the "it's a placeholder" theory doesn't hold much water, since previous roadmaps have been released with no pictures at all for certain future lenses.

I can't see any picture in the "leaked roadmap", please elaborate.

So given all that, it's probably fake.

I would be neutral to the realness of that until more convincing evidence comes - no matter positive or negative.

[mattdm]

If Seeing is Believing, almost all "unseeable", rare and strange things on Earth should not be believed! ;-D
Any proof for the non-existence of ghost, UFO, etc.? LOL..

Err, yeah. Can't prove a negative. Doesn't mean that I rationally have to believe in those. I can't prove that you're not actually a lemur with startlingly good typing skills — but it doesn't seem likely. So, like ghosts, UFOs, and new f/1.0 lenses, it's not part of my worldview.

I guess they are not "can't make up", but just don't do it! Now. As the marketing situation has changed. Its the totally right thing for them to plan for Full Frame, which possibly is still the future of those mainstream DSLRs.

Smart to plan, but I don't think there's going to be any promotional materials even hinting at it until they're sure they're going that way. Otherwise, it casts the current strategy — being the only dSLR maker who takes APS-C seriously, fitting nicely between the 4/3rds system and the "you want quality, you have to buy ff lenses" ones — into doubt. That wouldn't be the right thing at all, right on the heels of the K-7.

I can't see any picture in the "leaked roadmap", please elaborate.

The earlier version had the picture of the DFA 645 55mm f/2.8 lens beside the f/1.0 label. That's "fixed" in this version — there's now a thumb covering where the picture would be. And DFA has grown into DFA★.

I would be neutral to the realness of that until more convincing evidence comes - no matter positive or negative.

Well, you can be as gullible as you like. Me, I will be publicly super-shocked if there turns out to be anything to this.

[RiceHigh]

Err, yeah. Can't prove a negative. Doesn't mean that I rationally have to believe in those. I can't prove that you're not actually a lemur with startlingly good typing skills — but it doesn't seem likely. So, like ghosts, UFOs, and new f/1.0 lenses, it's not part of my worldview.

So, thats "seeing is believing" in your case.

Smart to plan, but I don't think there's going to be any promotional materials even hinting at it until they're sure they're going that way. Otherwise, it casts the current strategy — being the only dSLR maker who takes APS-C seriously, fitting nicely between the 4/3rds system and the "you want quality, you have to buy ff lenses" ones — into doubt. That wouldn't be the right thing at all, right on the heels of the K-7.

Not really. Canon, Nikon and Sony all have *both* FF and APS-C promoted and marketed for the time being. These will not have much conflicts IMO, just like what 645D will not harm the K-7 nor in vice versa.

The earlier version had the picture of the DFA 645 55mm f/2.8 lens beside the f/1.0 label. That's "fixed" in this version — there's now a thumb covering where the picture would be. And DFA has grown into DFA★.

With those photos, I don't think you can tell that much for the "correct positions" neither, as where they "should be".

Well, you can be as gullible as you like. Me, I will be publicly super-shocked if there turns out to be anything to this.

Oh yeah, I was so "gullible" last time for the new K since mid April and many people have been super shocked for the K-7! ;-D LOL..

[beaumont]

With the K7 launch, and the supposedly improved auto focus and noise improvement, I now officially couldn't care less about FF. So much so, that I almost wish I had purchased DA LTD's vs my FA LTD's because of the size advantage. (Also, this K7 speculation went on so long that I'm now looking forward to some peace and quite so as to simply take a copious amount of pictures)

[mattdm]

So, thats "seeing is believing" in your case.

Errr, no. Seeing is one form of evidence. But as I said initially, there's pretty good reasons to suspect this particular rumor is a hoax. I can enumerate them again if you like.

Oh yeah, I was so "gullible" last time for the new K since mid April and many people have been super shocked for the K-7! ;-D LOL..

But that doesn't mean you should automatically believe the next thing.

[RiceHigh]

With the K7 launch, and the supposedly improved auto focus and noise improvement, I now officially couldn't care less about FF.

Its too early to tell about the IQ of the K-7. But I do believe it is impractical to compare with FF. With the same generation of technology, FF will also win as long as noise is concerned!

So much so, that I almost wish I had purchased DA LTD's vs my FA LTD's because of the size advantage.

I am interested in the DA 15, which is the smallest high quality "24mm" (actually to be 23mm exactly) prime outthere and is non-existent in any other system.

[mattdm]

I am interested in the DA 15, which is the smallest high quality "24mm" (actually to be 23mm exactly) prime outthere and is non-existent in any other system.

Me too. I'm really curious what Mike Johnston will have to say about it.

[RiceHigh]

Errr, no. Seeing is one form of evidence. But as I said initially, there's pretty good reasons to suspect this particular rumor is a hoax. I can enumerate them again if you like.

Enumerating is easy. Actually, many people have done that already.

But still, there is no solid proof on why those photos are fake! :-)

But that doesn't mean you should automatically believe the next thing.

But also not automatically in not believing the next thing! ;-D

[RiceHigh]

Me too. I'm really curious what Mike Johnston will have to say about it.

He obviously likes much the DA 15, see:-

The Online Photographer: Zeiss 35mm f/2 ZF Distagon T*

"That might be a tad contrarian, since one of the major attractions of Zeiss lens designs is their splendid color transmission characteristics (a trait shared by the really quite special Pentax 15mm DA Limited lens I've been using recently)."

I hope that I will find the same too. Favourable "color transmission characteristics" is one of my top criteria in choosing a lens.

[beaumont]

Its too early to tell about the IQ of the K-7... .

Agreed, which is why I said "supposedly". Re "I do believe it is impractical to compare with FF", you are probably correct, but again...at this point I couldn't care less.