[janneman]

The covered lens images only raised the chance of it is being real! If it is fake, he would show you all! :-)

au contraire mon ami, au contraire.

[RiceHigh]

I could scan the print out and save that as a PDF

As I have said, anyone can do any editing. The Pentax roadmap is edited by Pentax staff as well. So, what does this prove???

[falconeye]

I think most of the logic used by you guys are not correct!
[...]
Every person believes that APS-H rumour then this roadmap is fake??? Whats the logic then? The two things and incidents are unrelated!

Well, at least me was the one saying that it is not a square sensor in the very early stage, nor I have ever promoted such rumour.

Nothing wrong with the logic. I never said it is a fake because it was easy to fake.

What exactly didn't you understand in "is 30% evidence and 70% psychology" ?

Why do you say the two things are unrelated?
According to opiszon,
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/610925-post46.html
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/611998-post24.html
both "leaked" images are from the same Polish user. The second only can be real if you also belief that both, APS-H and Sq.Sensor rumors are real. Which you say you don't and never did.

Did you miss something along the road?

No. The Pentax uploaded roadmaps are not editable. They are saved as read-only.

They are, I just tried. But it is a few graphic objects only, easy to copy'n paste into PS.

The attachment contains the roadmap as six graphics objects exported by Adobe into PS and then saved (my original is a 3358 x 2343px 646kB .png, got compressed upon upload).

[falconeye]

au contraire mon ami, au contraire.

+1

This just proves that RH knows nothing about the 70% psychology part which is why he got trapped

[ogl]

+1

This just proves that RH knows nothing about the 70% psychology part which is why he got trapped

To make fake roadmap is not hard work.

But it can't answer the question -
if

DFA645 25/2.8
DFA645 55/2.8

DFA*50/1.0 SDM
DA135/2.8 LIMITED
DFA*20/2.8 SDM
DA*400/4 ED (IF) SDM

real or not.

Are you agree?
I have another confirmation from another source, for example.
About 1 new lens from MAYBE FAKE ROADMAP.

[janneman]

To make fake roadmap is not hard work.

But it can't answer the question -
if

DFA645 25/2.8
DFA645 55/2.8

DFA*50/1.0 SDM
DA135/2.8 LIMITED
DFA*20/2.8 SDM
DA*400/4 ED (IF) SDM

real or not.

Are you agree?
I have another confirmation from another source, for example.
About 1 new lens from MAYBE FAKE ROADMAP.

The DA*400 is most likely to be true as something like that was already announced at the previous roadmap. Not sure about the f4, that could be wishfull thinking.

DA135/2.8. Probable, but again, not sure about f2.8 for the same reason. Given the increasing size of the latest limiteds I think the old 135/3.5 isn't too far off sizewize. A DA limted could be smaller ofcourse.

DFA* lenses, again, probably wishfull thinking or a Typo by the faker and most likely DFA 645.

[falconeye]

To make fake roadmap is not hard work.
But it can't answer the question -

I agree, it can't answer no question

There may be (accidentally) a faked lens which is coming for real. And a 135 would fill a clear gap in the lineup of prime lenses

[ogl]

DA135/2.8. Probable, but again, not sure about f2.8 for the same reason. Given the increasing size of the latest limiteds I think the old 135/3.5 isn't too far off sizewize. A DA limted could be smaller ofcourse.

DA135 could be 60 mm of lenght. It's small for 135 mm lens.
The weight is lower 350 gramm.
DA35/2.8 is not very small and light. FA35 is shorter and lighter.

[janneman]

DA135 could be 60 mm of lenght. It's small for 135 mm lens.
The weight is lower 350 gramm.
DA35/2.8 is not very small and light. FA35 is shorter and lighter.

the 135/3.5 lenses are 63 mm in length, as is the DA35/2.8 LE

[thibs]

the 135/3.5 lenses are 63 mm in length, as is the DA35/2.8 LE

And the DA35/2.8 is a macro 1:1 lens and it IS small considering it is a macro 1:1.

[Sean Nelson]

As I have said, anyone can do any editing. The Pentax roadmap is edited by Pentax staff as well. So, what does this prove???

What it proves is that "it looks real" doesn't mean it's real. Here's a fake I made by taking a piece of the March 24, 2009 roadmap as a starting point:



It took just a few minutes to do this - it's a lot easier manipulating text than a photo of a new lens or camera. This image is a helluva lot sharper than the blurry ones on your site, so if THIS looks real then you've got ABSOLUTELY NO WAY to judge whether the picture on your site is real or not.

...and the pictures on your site even hide the lens image. I just pasted another image of the DA645 lens, but I suspect whoever came up with the image posted on your site figured it was too much effort to make up a new image so that it wasn't an obvious fake...

[RMabo]

I think that we can come to the conclusion that those images are not enough evidence for Pentax future lens plans. Pentax is a tight lipped company now, almost leak proof (they leak when set under considerable pressure, like the week before the K-7 announcement...). I have heard nothing about new D FA Star lenses, but yes Pentax may well be considering them for an eventual future 24x36 in 5 years or whatever - but 50 f/1.0 is hard to believe. Pentax made a 50 f/1.2. A 50 f/1.0, hard to believe as a new standard lens for a 24x36 system. Would be more logical with an update of the 50 f/1.4 design. As for 20 f/2.8, well they have the design already - with some minor tweaks, why not? But wouldn't it be more logical to have sort of standard zoom and telezoom as first lenses for a new camera system instead of going for rather extreme primes... Neither the 20 f/2.8 or 50 f/1.0 can be considered as being standard choices for the everyday 24x36 shooter.

DA Star 400 - yes, Pentax has been working on one and it is a logical follow up to the 300. But it is "written in the stas" if it actually will be released. If the K-7 becomes the success we all hope for, so yes. I do believe in a 400 for the APS-C.

DA 135 Limited... well, I would want one. Really I would. I love 135. I have the FA 135 f/2.8 and loves it, one of my most used lenses. But 135 f/3.5 or f/3.2 sounds logical for a Limited. Or a 125 f/2.8. You now, Limietds are also about odd focal lengths. 135 is too normal. But then, 35 and 70 are quite normal lengths on APS-C so 135 is perhaps not odd for a Limited. Anyway, there has been talks for a long time about a more tele version of a Limited. Let's see what happens.

I do believe the Limited zoom was canceled many years ago, Limiteds are all about primes now. (Pentax did thought about a zoom in the late 90's, but it never surfaced. One idea was to have a 3 focals in one lens, so not really a zoom the classic way. I believe there used to be a Leica with this idea some years back...).

[Torphoto]

the 50mm F1.0 is the obvious fake here, a 30mm F1.0 would make much more sense and even then they are not going to release a 50mm F1.0 that would cost a fortune, no one will buy when they already have a 55mm F1.4.

If they want to create fake rumors why don't they make them based on some hard facts of what WE know will be comming ( 30mm F something ).

Ok my rant is over.

[janneman]

) But then, 35 and 70 are quite normal lengths on APS-C so 135 is perhaps not odd for a Limited.

Mayb the "new" limiteds are not limteds at all but mere "normal" lenses in disguise.

[rparmar]

RiceHigh, your grip on reality is fading. There is no reason I have to prove a fake. You must prove they are real. If you cannot, they remain childish fantasies.