[GlassJunkie]

9min 53 sec
Zack is talking about that topic! (and all FFvsAPSC topics)
))))

GREAT Review. GO ZACK...

[northcoastgreg]

Why retain FF lenses long after adopting a much smaller image circle?

Because they continue to sell and make money. It's expensive to design and produce new lenses, so why replace a lens when it continues to sell? Moreover, all the old film lenses that remained in production after the switch to digital, like the FA limiteds, and the designated "DFA" macro lenses, are all fairly compact prime lenses, despite being designed for 35mm film. In other words, there wasn't any great savings in size to be made by making smaller, APS-C versions of them. Nearly all the FF zooms were discontinued, partly because the FF zoom ranges didn't fit in with APS-C digital, but also perhaps because they were too big; the zoom to last the longest into the digital age was the petite FA 20-35.

I don't see why it's a big deal if a lens used with an APS-C sensor has an APS-C or FF image circle, or whether a specific lens is designed as DA, FA, DFA, or whatever -- if the lens works well on APS-C, that's all that counts in the end. With prime lenses, the size of the image circle doesn't seem all that important either. Don't both the DA 40 and DA 70 feature FF image circles? Yet you would be hard pressed to find smaller APS-C lenses at their respective focal lengths.

[ElJamoquio]

Don't both the DA 40 and DA 70 feature FF image circles? Yet you would be hard pressed to find smaller APS-C lenses at their respective focal lengths.

Yes. Every prime lens that pentax makes above 35mm adequately covers the FF image circle.

[ChristianRock]

There might still be millions of 35mm film Pentax cameras out there in working condition. And Vivitar will still sell you new film K-mount cameras. So why not still sell full frame lenses?

Also, there's some advantages to using a FF lens on APS-C, such as reduced vignetting and sharper images (cutting the corners where sharpness is usually compromised, especially when talking about zooms). A lot of times, the cost of doing a lens that covers the FF circle is very similar to covering the APS-C (and even the 4/3) sensor.

So I don't see why people are making this to be an issue. Lack of other things to talk about, I guess.

[Chris Mak]

There might still be millions of 35mm film Pentax cameras out there in working condition. And Vivitar will still sell you new film K-mount cameras. So why not still sell full frame lenses?

Also, there's some advantages to using a FF lens on APS-C, such as reduced vignetting and sharper images (cutting the corners where sharpness is usually compromised, especially when talking about zooms). A lot of times, the cost of doing a lens that covers the FF circle is very similar to covering the APS-C (and even the 4/3) sensor.

So I don't see why people are making this to be an issue. Lack of other things to talk about, I guess.

It is not an issue as long as people are happy lugging oversized lenses along that generically make an image of which you throw more than half away.
I used four Zeiss ZK lenses on the K5/K3 for two years, getting great results. But I bought them with upgrading to FF in the back of my mind. If that intention had not been there, then I certainly would not have bought them. The same would go, as far as common sense dictates, for the Fa ltd's. Everyone is free to use these FF designed lenses on Apsc, and no doubt will get great results, but they are still lugging half of the glass and weight along without using it.
The assumption that FF lenses work better on Apsc because they use the centre of the image circle is not really valid: using a 36mp (eq. to the 16mp K5IIs) sensor, the Zeiss ZK lenses perform much better overall than they did on Apsc, with the exception of vignetting at large apertures. When the 54mp FF sensor comes along (eq. to the 24mp K3), the K3 will have lost its current advantage also.
Apsc is a great system, and anyone should use whatever lens on it they want to, MF by means of adapter for all I care, but Ricoh should not lazily continue to issue oldish design lenses that might be a safe bet in case they should decide to release FF after all years from now. I just don't care for that philosophy. Other brands tend to cut out clearer paths. I guess it is just about product integrity...

Chris

[Uluru]

...but Ricoh should not lazily continue to issue oldish design lenses that might be a safe bet in case they should decide to release FF after all years from now. I just don't care for that philosophy. Other brands tend to cut out clearer paths. I guess it is just about product integrity...

They don't do that, because only new lens designs finally issued after the Ricoh came on board were DA560 and DA20-40.
Also DA Limiteds issued before Ricoh were not so old designs; they were tweaked to work well on an APS-C.

On the other hand, what is old? The other day I read about Mr Miyazaki issuing a 24mm/4 Perar lens that has only 3 elements; a design that he has made by the 19th century recipe and which beats Distagon design in some matters.

The old design can be refreshingly new. Thus the word "old", in terms of Pentax, to me means more not being able to consolidate lens lineup finally. 3+ years is far too long not to give audience some direction or incentive to see things are moving in a clear direction. And an optics company such as Pentax must do that – not by focusing on one DSLR body and then wait another year to make a move in the lens department – but by focusing on the lens system all the time.

Ricoh must have brain that works on two things. I don't want to sound too negative, but to me it seems me Ricoh's management who took possession of Pentax, and is now in charge of the Imaging group and officially represents it, had and still has no brains for it. And consequently no idea what that means. They have killed a very good potential simply because it was not in their blood to understand. Because they have never had such a delicate thing of their own.

I am willing to bet that by end of 2014, and if Photokina only reveals what Asahiman says, we can safely pronounce Ricoh has killed the K-mount lens system by not caring about it most ardently.

[Kunzite]

I have a feeling you'll pronounce the death of the K-mount regardless of what will happen at Photokina.

[Chris Mak]

They don't do that, because only new lens designs finally issued after the Ricoh came on board were DA560 and DA20-40.
Also DA Limiteds issued before Ricoh were not so old designs; they were tweaked to work well on an APS-C.

On the other hand, what is old? The other day I read about Mr Miyazaki issuing a 24mm/4 Perar lens that has only 3 elements; a design that he has made by the 19th century recipe and which beats Distagon design in some matters.

The old design can be refreshingly new. Thus the word "old", in terms of Pentax, to me means more not being able to consolidate lens lineup finally. 3+ years is far too long not to give audience some direction or incentive to see things are moving in a clear direction. And an optics company such as Pentax must do that – not by focusing on one DSLR body and then wait another year to make a move in the lens department – but by focusing on the lens system all the time.

Ricoh must have brain that works on two things. I don't want to sound too negative, but to me it seems me Ricoh's management who took possession of Pentax, and is now in charge of the Imaging group and officially represents it, had and still has no brains for it. And consequently no idea what that means. They have killed a very good potential simply because it was not in their blood to understand. Because they have never had such a delicate thing of their own.

I am willing to bet that by end of 2014, and if Photokina only reveals what Asahiman says, we can safely pronounce Ricoh has killed the K-mount lens system by not caring about it most ardently.

Well, I was really only referring to the fact that still so many lens designs are based on the 35mm film camera image circle, which again, is fine for those that like these lenses, and sure: the backwards compatibility of the K mount enables some very interesting poking around in old second hand lenses, like the K85/1.4 etc.. But it is not really a true backwards compatibility at all, and although nice: the experimenting with the whole of the old K-mount and also Sigma and Tamron lenses made for the (FF) K mount that was really discontinued with the switch to digital, is utterly unsatisfying in the long run. The only way out of this rather false legacy, is to buy a Sony A7(r), because then these lenses are starting to show something of their true design and size/weight/cost balance. I simply hope the time of redesigned or even rebadged FF lenses will not be extended this Photokina, because I really feel it will only make generic systems like m4/3 or Fuji or Sony E-mount all the more interesting.
It's ok. with me if Ricoh Pentax focusses on the Apsc market (Sony offers somewhat of a way out for FF if you like legacy), but let them put all their efforts then in competitive Apsc lenses, like a 21/24/28/35 f1.8 prime with class leading IQ, solid metal build but small (designed for Apsc), with lot's of glass, WR and a reliable DC AF motor. That would at least set their Apsc line on the map as class leading, not only by body, but also by lenses. Instead, the 20-40mm is a nice exotic lens, that doesn't really take the K3 to top level IQ wise, and eg. a lens like the DA 12-24, although not at al a bad lens, is not at all optimized for Apsc digital. If people love the Apsc system so much now that the K3 leads its class, then why is there so very little aspiration for Apsc designed truly top level lenses, that can realistically compete with Canon/Nikon FF, and make FF redundant, as seems to be the overall wish amongst the Pentax user base?!

Chris

[Uluru]

I have a feeling you'll pronounce the death of the K-mount regardless of what will happen at Photokina.

Not at all. But Ricoh management shows so far they don't really know what the commitment to a lens systems means. By showing that, they also show they are not up to the task of managing an iconic brand.

It is something like selling your old house with a lovely rose garden. You are of course permitted to come and visit the new owner, have a cup of coffee, and may give him a hint or two constantly how to make the most of the rose garden. But the message falls on deaf ears; the new owner does not understand the nuances; it is only a matter of time before he sees it is too much for him and decides to pull everything out and plant Mediterranean low maintenance shrubbery instead.

This has happened to Pentax twice. And the K-mount is in incongruent disarray just because of that.

Ricoh does not know what it means to properly care about a lens system.

[GlassJunkie]

Although I usually agree with your views, we part on this one. I have faith in Pentax engineers and Ricoh's biz sense, having lived in Japan for years. I believe FF is 18 mos out at minimum, and tech leadership in APSc is a clear objective ar RP...

[aleonx3]

....

Ricoh does not know what it means to properly care about a lens system.

This sounds like something we have seen before... errh...may be from someone called "rice-somthing.." - but Pentax is doomed anyway.....

[Uluru]

This sounds like something we have seen before... errh...may be from someone called "rice-somthing.." - but Pentax is doomed anyway.....

Pentax is indeed doomed, or better say, an inconsistent brand: party because of its own irresponsibility through the years, partly because structural changes occur each time the company is taken by an other entity. Those changes shift plans significantly.

That shock is absorbed through many visible issues: lagging behind in camera tech, not have enough time to consolidate the lens system. Because Pentax team plans according to bean counters in the higher hierarchy above them, not because Pentax engineers and development team believe something should be done, know the tempo, know the timing, etc. and their own accounting will fund a way.

No, it does not happen, because both Ricoh and Hoya have their own priorities. So the investment does not come in time, or does not come in intensity truly needed, or does not come at all. If we imagine Pentax as a sailboat, it is left to the mercies of sea winds; each corporate entity above thinks the brand should go this or that way.

[afan137]

Pentax is indeed doomed, or better say, an inconsistent brand:.

Hahaha. It is always funny to hear people complaining Pentax is doomed just because they don't get what they want immediately. Look K-3 with its specs and the price now ( below 1000 USD), make it great contender for pro dx shooters who long for the birdie photography. Pentax has 560, and with the newly coming 150-450,then it is all set. Many nikon and canon shooters are craving the successor for D300s and 7D, but what they get only cheap FF camera.

Additionally with MF 645Z, pentax has better opportunity to gain more professional photographers who need high ress image, and once again canon shooters might interested to invest in MF, considering how poor the canon sensor has become in the past 5 years.

It is true, there is a sweet gap between K-3 and 645Z, that Pentax should really fill in. The FF camera is the only answer. But look the current competitors now (in US). There are bunch FF cameras that can be problematic for Pentax once they want to play in this small market share called FF system. The models in circles are the most likely where pentax is going to introduce their first FF.



I wonder how Pentax will answer the demand for FF camera, if we see how competitive this area has become.To be honest,I'd like to see Pentax more investing their resources, first in mirrorless APSC to compete with Fuji X system, and then after that FF camera.

[RobA_Oz]

The probable strategy that Ricoh has adopted is to attack the 35FF market with a pincer movement, with a view to developing technologies that are transferable between systems, and which are paid for in those segments above and below the 35FF format. It's widely agreed that the K-3 is best in its class (ie APS-C) while the 645Z offers value for money in the MF segment that, currently, no-one else has an answer for. The main reasons for the 645Z (and the 645D before it) being so much lower in price than its competitors are that it uses an existing lens mount and uses focussing and exposure technologies developed for the K-mount cameras.

Because the 645 cameras offer such great value for money, anything that other MF systems can do better can be overlooked to some extent by buyers, and, of course, the price means more people will be attracted to it than would otherwise have entered this segment. Consequently, the experience from this more specialised market can advise the development of a 35FF system, which will be also more specialised than the APS-C market. The APS-C cameras, of course, are where the development begins and, if anything provides the cash for development, it is this part of the business, even if the 645Z proves to be a continuing sales success in the medium term.

Given the late start for Pentax in the 35FF segment, and the increasing number of competitor bodies and systems now in it, I can see why Ricoh has not rushed into it. A Pentax entry at this stage will have to be very good and offer a better value proposition than those competitors, or it will be a failure.

Personally, I'm not fussed about the delay in Pentax's entry into the 35FF segment, even if it means a few people give up waiting, and move elsewhere. It's better to let them do that, and offer a good proposition to have them return later, than to rush something out that doesn't meet their expectations, and results in losing them forever, let alone dragging the rest of the product range down with it.

That said, if they're going to enter this segment, and I still think it's inevitable that they will, then I hope they're going to do it soon.

[Kunzite]

Not at all. But Ricoh management shows so far they don't really know what the commitment to a lens systems means. By showing that, they also show they are not up to the task of managing an iconic brand.

"I'm not saying the K-mount is dead, but the K-mount is dead"? You're at it for some time already

It is something like selling your old house with a lovely rose garden. You are of course permitted to come and visit the new owner, have a cup of coffee, and may give him a hint or two constantly how to make the most of the rose garden. But the message falls on deaf ears; the new owner does not understand the nuances; it is only a matter of time before he sees it is too much for him and decides to pull everything out and plant Mediterranean low maintenance shrubbery instead.

What a nice, irrelevant analogy; is it meant to provoke an emotional response? Anyway, you have some writing skills!

This has happened to Pentax twice. And the K-mount is in incongruent disarray just because of that.

Ricoh does not know what it means to properly care about a lens system.

What exactly happened to Pentax twice? They're not into gardening but camera business, please explain clearly.
I'm quite sure Ricoh knows better what it means to properly care about a lens system than you or me. Perhaps it doesn't mean "launch N products in X years after you took over". Perhaps it means "new technologies are necessary in order to launch truly competitive products", or "the current production & QA processes must be improved before anything else".
Lenses are long-time products, judging by short-term thinking is not necessarily correct.