[Medium FormatPro]

Consider the following...

There are some very interesting and truly valid ideas on this thread. I'm almost wishing that any Pentax body (or actually any camera body in general) even had half of those concepts.

If and when Pentax does ever come out with a full frame (which btw hasn't been completely confirmed just yet - officially) what does one think that the company will aim for. Here are a few very maor considerations...

1. Will it keep (what is) the Pentax PK mount - most likely yes.
2. What cost "audience will it be aimed at? From both a business and also any level of photographer (outside of anyone looking for the flagships such as the Nikon D4) perspective; that Pentax will most likely have to aim the cost of the body to less than $2500. So whatever they can fit into the camera for that price - might just have to do. Anything more than that will also be directly competing with having at least two Nikon full frames that cost less - along with all of the other models from other companies.
3. Chances are also, that... IF Pentax does do the full frame - that there will also eventually be more than one model that has it. Perhaps entering the market with the $2500 one and then expanding to a $4000-5000 range model

[WideOpen]

Sorry if this has been addressed to death already.

The DA* "normal" lens should be Pentax's (and every manufacturer's) flagship lens. It is a lens that can be used for 80 - 90% of applications. Unfortunately, the DA* 16-50mm is not that lens. While it's optical performance is average, perhaps adequate (though not at that price), its motor failure issues are a huge red flag for me, and why I have not purchased one to date. I suspect that any serious, professional photographer would builds their kit around a manufacturer's very best "normal" zoom lens. You can make as many class-leading APS-C DSLRs as you like (see, e.g., K10d, K5), but without that foundational lens you cannot attract a serious-enough following. In my opinion, it has been a major shortcoming of the Pentax DSLR brand.

The next DA* "normal" zoom cannot come soon enough. In my opinion, given the state of sensors, it need not be a constant f/2.8. It could be a constant f/3.5 or f/4, with a DC or the most reliable motor available, as well as screw dive in case of failure. Also, it need not extend to 16mm - too many sacrifices with such extremes. I'd be happy with a nominal 18-85mm, f/4 (actually, say 20 - 80mm) that was a real and even performer across the whole range. Heck, I'd actually be happy with a 20 - 50 mm, f/4! Just something that delivers and is reliable.

Pentax, can you deliver on the next DA* normal lens?

[curlednoodles]

Sorry if this has been addressed to death already.

The DA* "normal" lens should be Pentax's (and every manufacturer's) flagship lens. It is a lens that can be used for 80 - 90% of applications. Unfortunately, the DA* 16-50mm is not that lens. While it's optical performance is average, perhaps adequate (though not at that price), its motor failure issues are a huge red flag for me, and why I have not purchased one to date.

Im pretty certain the HSM failure issue has been addressed with the 16-50mm lens? If you bought an older one second hand then you might have a problem but as theyre manufactured today, im of the impression it would be uncommon to have an issue with the motor?
The retail price is certainly exorbitant though.

[RonHendriks1966]

Dear Pentax, reading that the new lens DA 560mm/f5.6 isn't a full working Full Frame (36x24mm) lens, this would make a great new oppertunity to create as a new top-off-the-line "professinal" camera for Pentax one with a larger APS-H sized sensor.

Thank you.

[ElJamoquio]

Where'd you read that?

[lukelbd]

Sorry if this has been addressed to death already.

The DA* "normal" lens should be Pentax's (and every manufacturer's) flagship lens. It is a lens that can be used for 80 - 90% of applications. Unfortunately, the DA* 16-50mm is not that lens. While it's optical performance is average, perhaps adequate (though not at that price), its motor failure issues are a huge red flag for me, and why I have not purchased one to date. I suspect that any serious, professional photographer would builds their kit around a manufacturer's very best "normal" zoom lens. You can make as many class-leading APS-C DSLRs as you like (see, e.g., K10d, K5), but without that foundational lens you cannot attract a serious-enough following. In my opinion, it has been a major shortcoming of the Pentax DSLR brand.

The next DA* "normal" zoom cannot come soon enough. In my opinion, given the state of sensors, it need not be a constant f/2.8. It could be a constant f/3.5 or f/4, with a DC or the most reliable motor available, as well as screw dive in case of failure. Also, it need not extend to 16mm - too many sacrifices with such extremes. I'd be happy with a nominal 18-85mm, f/4 (actually, say 20 - 80mm) that was a real and even performer across the whole range. Heck, I'd actually be happy with a 20 - 50 mm, f/4! Just something that delivers and is reliable.

Pentax, can you deliver on the next DA* normal lens?

A million times this. The DA* 16-50mm has very mediocre IQ, and at it's current price it's a complete joke. The Sigma 17-50mm is significantly better optically in every single way, especially sharpness and chromatic abberation, and it is half the price. The quality control issues are huge -- the one I purchased not only had had its SDM failed (it wasn't even being used; was just sitting on a shelf for a year or two) -- but even worse IQ than I epected; at 50mm f/2.8 in particular, it was complete soup across the frame, and that is no exaggeration. It's laughable that they don't have a standard zoom with acceptable IQ.

People will say "every system has some good lenses, and some bad lenses" but IMO Pentax's current lens lineup is a major, major turn off for any potential customer. I'd also mention that every single weather sealed DA lens is crap compared to other offers in the same price range; the only weather sealed lenses with acceptable image quality for the money are the DA* telephotos and telephoto zooms, and the WR Macro.

[Medium FormatPro]

A million times this. The DA* 16-50mm has very mediocre IQ, and at it's current price it's a complete joke. The Sigma 17-50mm is significantly better optically in every single way, especially sharpness and chromatic abberation, and it is half the price. The quality control issues are huge -- the one I purchased not only had had its SDM failed (it wasn't even being used; was just sitting on a shelf for a year or two) -- but even worse IQ than I epected; at 50mm f/2.8 in particular, it was complete soup across the frame, and that is no exaggeration. It's laughable that they don't have a standard zoom with acceptable IQ.

People will say "every system has some good lenses, and some bad lenses" but IMO Pentax's current lens lineup is a major, major turn off for any potential customer. I'd also mention that every single weather sealed DA lens is crap compared to other offers in the same price range; the only weather sealed lenses with acceptable image quality for the money are the DA* telephotos and telephoto zooms, and the WR Macro.

I agree. If the Pentax 16-50 is considered as one of their best lenses - then Pentax has nowhere to go but down.

Out of the nineteen people I know that have purchased the 16-50... There were six that major problems with it in warranty/ Four of those six has recurring issues with it. Also of that nineteen - only two elected to actually want to hold onto the lens'. Yes the 16-50 is really that bad.

Let me reiterate again to Pentax specifically and also to anyone ever considering a 16-50... Don't bother with it. THe Pentax 16-50 is about the quality of a LensBaby. Oops sorry, didn't mean to downgrade LensBaby - as the LensBaby is better

[Kunzite]

Now it's not Sigma who's so much better than everything Pentax does, it's also LensBaby?

[Medium FormatPro]

One has to place themselves in the shoes of another...

Which would be worse; a professional and/or a creative pro using the 16-50 (and then having it fail); or someone whom is just starting out?

Either way; with Pentax having such major issues with at least two of it's flagship lens' and also items like sensor burn on the original run K-5's... That's enough to discourage a significant amount of people against Pentax. There's nothing quite like taking the financial hot on a lens that is a design and concept failure - or worse being out on a job assignment somewhere and having an item fail - even if there are back-ups.

Sure there are mechanical and other failures in most any item built. But these issues were in fact caused and then ignored by Pentax

[accio]

The new Sony has very handy feature: in-camera focus limiter. No other brands does it currenlty AFAIK.
For a lot of application would be a killer feature!

[ElJamoquio]

That does sound nice.

[bunegg]

Dear pentax, i want a pentax q20 with built in electronic viewfinder that looks like an auto110

[Uluru]

A million times this. The DA* 16-50mm has very mediocre IQ ...

People will say "every system has some good lenses, and some bad lenses" but IMO Pentax's current lens lineup is a major, major turn off for any potential customer.

Luckily you are not a potential customer.
But a full frame troll; we still need a suitable sensor to capture all the nuances of your nonsense.

[GordonZA]

What Pentax really need is a proper marketing plan that is global and consistent. Then they need a consistent global sales plan... I.e. the 560mm is still not listed in South Africa.

Part of that plan should include getting their products used by photographers at high profile events or sponsorships for high profile events.

Endorse various athletes that are known globally etc...

Just my two cents worth...

[Medium FormatPro]

Endorse various athletes that are known globally etc

I'd say go for the athletic event venues as opposed to the individual athletes. Because the individuals can flop out at any time.

But on the flip side of that; maybe Pentax could afford to throw a few dimes to Lance Armstrong or Tiger Woods