[LamyTax]

We have had this discussion before (several times), but prior to your joining the Forums.

And the fact that you've speculated about it before I joined makes my input less credible? I see. Did I miss some kind of entry ritual to the forum? Where can I sign up? :P

For the record, it's absurd to think that Pentax would talk about a new range of lenses before releasing a 35mm sensor camera, if they weren't talking about the camera as well. The absence of a suitable range of lenses provides no proof that a new camera is coming, or not.

Yes, that's sound logic. What makes you think Pentax Ricoh Imaging Corp. is not already working on that?

Secondly, Pentax has many good past lens designs that can be adapted readily to any new 35mm camera.

Which I've also said. They just need to refine their calculations, add new coatings, maybe change the design a little. Minor things. Easy to put out a full range of new lenses.

The Q was released with a small, but satisfactory range of lenses that required design and manufacture from the ground up.

The Q was a tiny project that barely made it through the Hoya valley. The lenses aren't incredibly complex designs, and the Q itself is merely a compact camera, although very good at that. Compare this to the complexity of engineering a large DSLR.

Even if no further lenses were available at launch, there are enough compatible new lenses to satisfy some of the initial interest, and there's a not insignificant group of K, A/A*, F/F* and FA/FA* owners around, like me, who would be early adopters, at the right price and performance.

Full frame in the digital age is a whole different thing to what it was in the analog age. If you don't have a quality line up of lenses available -- at least have a proper kit zoom (DFA* 28-70), the thing will not sell well enough. You've seen how terrible Sony's start into full frame has been. The camera certainly was nice, but the market didn't like it very much.
And again, we're talking Pentax Ricoh now. No more Hoya. They want to do things the right way.

[ElJamoquio]

You've seen how terrible Sony's start into full frame has been. The camera certainly was nice

Really? The high ISO performance of the A850, released in 2009, was inferior to that of the 1DSii and the 5D (original) released in 2004-2005.

That's abysmal.

[Clavius]

I don't have the 60-250, so I can't test it myself.
Anyway, it's the only lens that sort-of works. At least a standard zoom is needed.

Haven't you even looked at this thread??
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/31629-da-lens-...ts-thread.html

Then add the third party lenses from Tamron and Sigma, which are all FF, to fill the holes. Off course, Pentax should fill those holes themselves eventually.

Pentax has no reason not to bring a Full Frame camera, what lenses are concerned.

[RobA_Oz]

And the fact that you've speculated about it before I joined makes my input less credible? I see. Did I miss some kind of entry ritual to the forum? Where can I sign up? :P

Of course it doesn't! You may, however, have not had the opportunity to trawl through the various arguments that have been put in the myriad of threads on this subject. I was attempting to show you a bit of courtesy, in that regard. You apparently took it as condescension, which was not intended.

Yes, that's sound logic. What makes you think Pentax Ricoh Imaging Corp. is not already working on that?

I don't believe one way or the other, which I thought I was expressing. I would like to think they were, but I was simply pointing out that an absence of information doesn't indicate they are or aren't.

Which I've also said. They just need to refine their calculations, add new coatings, maybe change the design a little. Minor things. Easy to put out a full range of new lenses.

Well, it seems we agree on that much.

The Q was a tiny project that barely made it through the Hoya valley. The lenses aren't incredibly complex designs, and the Q itself is merely a compact camera, although very good at that. Compare this to the complexity of engineering a large DSLR.

There's no question about the relative size of the projects involved, but I was referring to the information flow prior to launch.

Full frame in the digital age is a whole different thing to what it was in the analog age. If you don't have a quality line up of lenses available -- at least have a proper kit zoom (DFA* 28-70), the thing will not sell well enough. You've seen how terrible Sony's start into full frame has been. The camera certainly was nice, but the market didn't like it very much.
And again, we're talking Pentax Ricoh now. No more Hoya. They want to do things the right way.

Amen to that last point.

Sony's position in the DSLR marketplace is an interesting study in marketing, all to itself. I think they've attempted to position themselves as a short-term challenger to Canon and Nikon, and the best face you can put on that is to say they've had mixed success. One might have thought they'd have made more of the Carl Zeiss lens offerings, but maybe CZ is keeping their powder dry for a model of their own.

I'm not sure what the definition of "selling well" would be in this segment, though. Obviously, it's got to be something more ambitious than just covering development costs in an appropriate time-scale, but I imagine the D800 has set something of a benchmark here.

[normhead]

but I imagine the D800 has set something of a benchmark here.

What I imagine is a lot of directors of R&D departments calling their FF people in and saying "Why the F*%k couldn't you have come up with something like that?'

[TomTextura]

Having just looked at Canon's and Nikon's lens prices for primes at the wide and telephoto focal lengths, I think Pentax could attract serious photographers with pricing new DFA lenses competitively. If Pentax were to offer a good price to quality ratio on the FF camera body and then do the same for their new FF lenses, I believe they would have lots of appeal. They don't need the extra expense of IS or VR in their lens either, well, except that it is beneficial for stabilizing the scene in the VF when using a telephoto lens. Nikon's 24mm f/1.4 lens is $2,000 and Canon's is $1,600! Pentax could perhaps offer a 24mm at f/1.8 or f/2 for only slightly above $1,000 to draw business. Nikon's 200mm f/2 is $5,800 and Canon's is $6,000! What if Pentax could offer a 200mm f/2 or f/2.4 for somewhere between $2,000 and $4,000? I think it would be more difficult for Pentax to differentiate themselves pricewise in the 135mm range. Looking at Canikon's prime lens offerings and then imagining what Pentax could do puts a different twist on the speculation of how Pentax would compete and fair in the FF market. The recent UPP fiasco doesn't bode well though for this addition of FF lenses to the Pentax FF speculation equation.

[bossa]

Having just looked at Canon's and Nikon's lens prices for primes at the wide and telephoto focal lengths, I think Pentax could attract serious photographers with pricing new DFA lenses competitively. If Pentax were to offer a good price to quality ratio on the FF camera body and then do the same for their new FF lenses, I believe they would have lots of appeal. They don't need the extra expense of IS or VR in their lens either, well, except that it is beneficial for stabilizing the scene in the VF when using a telephoto lens. Nikon's 24mm f/1.4 lens is $2,000 and Canon's is $1,600! Pentax could perhaps offer a 24mm at f/1.8 or f/2 for only slightly above $1,000 to draw business. Nikon's 200mm f/2 is $5,800 and Canon's is $6,000! What if Pentax could offer a 200mm f/2 or f/2.4 for somewhere between $2,000 and $4,000? I think it would be more difficult for Pentax to differentiate themselves pricewise in the 135mm range. Looking at Canikon's prime lens offerings and then imagining what Pentax could do puts a different twist on the speculation of how Pentax would compete and fair in the FF market. The recent UPP fiasco doesn't bode well though for this addition of FF lenses to the Pentax FF speculation equation.

Take away the VR and Pentax could offer a more compact 200/2 although I would think that lens would be quite heavy. I don't mind my DA*200 being 'only' a F/2.8 though.

I suspect a Pentax FF would be a mirrorless with an EVF where focus peaking and a decent HUD would be readily useful. Dark viewfinders would be a thing of the past as an EVF could also compensate for low light levels.

If Pentax waited a year or two they would have the benefit of new technologies in these areas that could make the OVF unnecessary.

They were the 1st to bring the SLR into commercial production so it's not hard to think they could take the same leap into a new area and get a break on the opposition. That new line might be the perfect reason to ditch the K-mount and start a fresh but I suspect that the K-01 will eventually morph into a FF mirrorless camera instead.

[RobA_Oz]

Having just looked at Canon's and Nikon's lens prices for primes at the wide and telephoto focal lengths, I think Pentax could attract serious photographers with pricing new DFA lenses competitively. If Pentax were to offer a good price to quality ratio on the FF camera body and then do the same for their new FF lenses, I believe they would have lots of appeal. They don't need the extra expense of IS or VR in their lens either, well, except that it is beneficial for stabilizing the scene in the VF when using a telephoto lens. Nikon's 24mm f/1.4 lens is $2,000 and Canon's is $1,600! Pentax could perhaps offer a 24mm at f/1.8 or f/2 for only slightly above $1,000 to draw business. Nikon's 200mm f/2 is $5,800 and Canon's is $6,000! What if Pentax could offer a 200mm f/2 or f/2.4 for somewhere between $2,000 and $4,000? I think it would be more difficult for Pentax to differentiate themselves pricewise in the 135mm range. Looking at Canikon's prime lens offerings and then imagining what Pentax could do puts a different twist on the speculation of how Pentax would compete and fair in the FF market. The recent UPP fiasco doesn't bode well though for this addition of FF lenses to the Pentax FF speculation equation.

There's an old saying that "you get what you pay for", which probably applies as much to lenses as anything else, so it may be a little tricky offering Pentax equivalents at too much of a discount, or it will be easy for customers and rivals alike to dismiss them as sub-standard. However, that's not to say that other features (probably light weight and WR) couldn't make them attractive. As for sharpness, how many hairs do you need to count on someone's cheek at 200 metres, anyway? Leica and CZ lenses are optically stunning, but we all know the price to be paid there.

As regards the UPP upsets, I think it will be looked on as a bit of a flurry with hindsight, so perhaps that's a better word than "fiasco". Nonetheless, that exercise does suggest that Pentax is looking at the difference between "cheap" and "value for money" even if we might think they got it wrong.

[LamyTax]

Haven't you even looked at this thread??
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/31629-da-lens-...ts-thread.html

I indeed have. An f/4 lens that needs to be stepped down to sort of work on FF isn't exactly something I'd consider something to accompany an expensive FF body. And it's not worth of a *. People who buy full frame do it because they want image quality, and the only in production zoom is more of a coke bottle. Nah.

Then add the third party lenses from Tamron and Sigma, which are all FF, to fill the holes.

Relying on third party lenses to fill gaps is not a smart move if you want to gain in market share.

Pentax has no reason not to bring a Full Frame camera, what lenses are concerned.

They've done this with the 645D. Digital FF at this day and age needs lenses that deliver very high resolution. So at least new coatings are needed.

Like I said, there isn't much needed in terms of zooms. A short standard zoom and a long standard zoom, both fast. Then you maybe want a DA* 24/2, a DA* 28/2.8 ... that's something a lot of people have been asking about anyway . And finally, a new revision of the DA* 55/1.4 with faster AF. So, we're talking five lenses. All of which are easy to do, because they've done them before.

I don't believe one way or the other, which I thought I was expressing. I would like to think they were, but I was simply pointing out that an absence of information doesn't indicate they are or aren't.

There's not an absence of information .

Sony's position in the DSLR marketplace is an interesting study in marketing, all to itself. I think they've attempted to position themselves as a short-term challenger to Canon and Nikon, and the best face you can put on that is to say they've had mixed success. One might have thought they'd have made more of the Carl Zeiss lens offerings, but maybe CZ is keeping their powder dry for a model of their own.

I'm not sure what the definition of "selling well" would be in this segment, though. Obviously, it's got to be something more ambitious than just covering development costs in an appropriate time-scale, but I imagine the D800 has set something of a benchmark here.

Sony set out to compete with Canon/Nikon. That whole project didn't really turn out well. I'm still not sure which market segment they were really aiming for (and still are). I know a few of Sony shooters, they're all kinds. The a900 looked like some kind of landscape/studio camera. Not for action shots, obviously. But with releasing great long lenses, this doesn't make much sense. Their newest crop cameras have very fast fps. I don't see the niche they're aiming for.

[Clavius]

People who buy full frame do it because they want image quality, and the only in production zoom is more of a coke bottle. Nah.

You're contradicting yourself more every time you post. Wouldn't people who are after the ultimate image quality prefer primes over zooms anyway? Everybody knows zooms compromise in IQ. The high quality ones, not so much maybe, but that's more then enough for pixelpeepers and purists to stay away from them.

Why am I bothering with this anyway? I should not feed the troll.

[LamyTax]

You're contradicting yourself more every time you post. Wouldn't people who are after the ultimate image quality prefer primes over zooms anyway? Everybody knows zooms compromise in IQ. The high quality ones, not so much maybe, but that's more then enough for pixelpeepers and purists to stay away from them.

What you're saying is contradicting: Everybody knows zooms compromise in IQ. The high quality ones, not so much maybe.
Other than that, really, I'm contradicting myself more and more? I merely stated that Pentax currently does not have any half decent zooms for FF in production, and that they're not going to release a FF this year (which is a fact).
If that's contradictory... oh well.

Why am I bothering with this anyway? I should not feed the troll.

Anyone who you disagree with is a troll? How very nice of you

[Clavius]

Anyone who you disagree with is a troll?

Neh, you pretty much had that one nailed as soon as you registered on a Pentaxforum with the nickname "lamytax".

[LamyTax]

Neh, you pretty much had that one nailed as soon as you registered on a Pentaxforum with the nickname "lamytax".

Lamy is a maker of PENs which I like very much.
Have a coffee and relax :P.

[Sandy Hancock]

You are new to the forum, and promptly described the DA*60-250, one of the highest rated lenses in our database, as a Coke bottle. By any standards that is pretty harsh, certainly misinformed, and probably deliberately provocative.

That's what trolls do.

[LamyTax]

You are new to the forum, and promptly described the DA*60-250, one of the highest rated lenses in our database, as a Coke bottle. By any standards that is pretty harsh, certainly misinformed, and probably deliberately provocative.

That's what trolls do.

Don't take it out of context. A lot of lenses work great on APS-C but don't do well on FF, and I'm talking about full frame performance only.
With the 60-250, we have a lens that apparently needs to be stopped down on full frame to be acceptable. And it's already an f/4. That's just not good, no matter how great it is on APS-C.