[normhead]

The main problem at Pentax, lenses (DA560 and a DFA150-450) still in the portfolio prevent the design new ones. The DA560 is the main blocker here.

The 150-450 is a new lens.... and if the 560 isn't selling well, what makes anyone think a more expensive lens would sell better.

Anyone who can afford a 400, 500 or 600mm ƒ4 lens, can afford a body to go on it.

[sculptor666]

no harm in trying another brand, i'd recommend buying used though. most of the time you can sell for about the same price you paid... and any difference i think of as a rental fee. if you search through flickr, you'll find unbelievable images taken with every brand.

[biz-engineer]

The 150-450 is a new lens.... and if the 560 isn't selling well, what makes anyone think a more expensive lens would sell better.

People who have $5K don't buy the DA560, they get the old FA600 or a Sigma 500 f4.5.

[normhead]

It's true. A while ago I was shooting beside a guy with a Nikon 600 ƒ4, I had my A-400 ƒ5.6 He looked at my lens and said "I don't shoot ƒ 5.6". It's an attitude that's out there among many long glass shooters.

[photoptimist]

It's true. A while ago I was shooting beside a guy with a Nikon 600 ƒ4, I had my A-400 ƒ5.6 He looked at my lens and said "I don't shoot ƒ 5.6". It's an attitude that's out there among many long glass shooters.

Indeed!

And that's the reason MILCs will never reach 100% marketshare. There's a segment of the market that wants big manly lenses on big manly cameras. One of the primary "advantages" of MILC is a huge disadvantage to this market segment.

With modern-day cameras and modern-day PP, there really isn't any image that an f/4 lens can get that an f/5.6 lens cannot. Yet that is not the point. Giant glass isn't about the pixel-image the lens creates in the portfolio but the self-image the photographer creates among his peers.

[normhead]

Indeed!

And that's the reason MILCs will never reach 100% marketshare. There's a segment of the market that wants big manly lenses on big manly cameras. One of the primary "advantages" of MILC is a huge disadvantage to this market segment.

With modern-day cameras and modern-day PP, there really isn't any image that an f/4 lens can get that an f/5.6 lens cannot. Yet that is not the point. Giant glass isn't about the pixel-image the lens creates in the portfolio but the self-image the photographer creates among his peers.

Then there's that look of disdain the day I cut in front of all the big heavy long glass shooters with my F 70-210


The snobs refused to let me see their images after i showed them mine. I think it was because i told them the lens cost me $35.

Anyway, if you are into this kind of stuff.... check out this lens.
http://www.canonrumors.com/patent-canon-ef-28-560mm-f2-8-5-6/

This is where everyone pipes up and says, if only it started at 24mm and was ƒ4.5.

[biz-engineer]

And that's the reason MILCs will never reach 100% marketshare.

There an advantage to mirrorless , less vibration, a smaller size of the camera body isn't an advantage, smaller camera size is even a disadvantage. On static subjects , I definitely get more resolution when using an electronic shutter (mirror up), using an evf + on sensor af would eliminate the delay between PDAF and shutter release in LV mode.

With modern-day cameras and modern-day PP, there really isn't any image that an f/4 lens can get that an f/5.6 lens cannot.

f4 glass allows more accurate focus, even when shooting at f5.6 or f8 , because the DoF used for AF is more narrow that the DoF after the diaphragm closes to take the photo. On top of this, a f4 lens allow use of a TC and still have AF working. On top of this, the DA560 is less compact than any other lens of this focal length. If I can get an f4 lens for the price of the DA560, why should I get the DA560?

[photoptimist]

Then there's that look of disdain the day cut in front of all the big heavy long glass shooters with my F 70-210


The snobs refused to let me see their images after i showed them mine. I think it was because i told them the lens cost me $35.

Anyway, if you are into this kind of stuff.... check out this lens.
Patent: Canon EF 28-560mm f/2.8-5.6

This is where everyone pipes up and says, if only it started at 24mm and was ƒ4.5.

LOL!

Nice picture!

A better photographer beats "better gear" any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

What's sad is those big-glass shooters probably lose more photos than they gain because of they can't carry their obese lenses very far, can't set them up quickly, and can't move fast enough to get good shots. They might claim their machine gun cameras and tracking AF gets them a better "keeper rate" but the person with lighter gear gets more and better photos because they have a much higher "starter rate."

[UserAccessDenied]

LOL!

Nice picture!

A better photographer beats "better gear" any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

What's sad is those big-glass shooters probably lose more photos than they gain because of they can't carry their obese lenses very far, can't set them up quickly, and can't move fast enough to get good shots. They might claim their machine gun cameras and tracking AF gets them a better "keeper rate" but the person with lighter gear gets more and better photos because they have a much higher "starter rate."

Right.

I used to drive a scooter as my main transportation in college.
I lived in a tourist town that had an influx of half a million people on July 4th weekend.

If you had a Porsche, you'd crush me on the track or straight line any day.... No question.
But, getting to work from my house - my scooter will beat your Porsche hands down, every day.

It's all about knowing how to use the gear that you have, and if there are limitations you need to find work-arounds and focus on the aspects of your gear that make it better than the "Porsche"

[photoptimist]

There an advantage to mirrorless , less vibration, a smaller size of the camera body isn't an advantage, smaller camera size is even a disadvantage. On static subjects , I definitely get more resolution when using an electronic shutter (mirror up), using an evf + on sensor af would eliminate the delay between PDAF and shutter release in LV mode.

One can always use a DSLR in MILC mode (but not vice versa).

f4 glass allows more accurate focus, even when shooting at f5.6 or f8 , because the DoF used for AF is more narrow that the DoF after the diaphragm closes to take the photo. On top of this, a f4 lens allow use of a TC and still have AF working. On top of this, the DA560 is less compact than any other lens of this focal length. If I can get an f4 lens for the price of the DA560, why should I get the DA560?

In theory, f/4 glass may allow more accurate focus but whether it happens in practice or affects a meaningful fraction of images is another matter.

Regarding teleconvertors: I love them for their convenience of producing SOOC images with longer reach but it's also very clear that do no better than cropping when it comes to critical image quality. In terms of "print-big keepers", TCs seem to offer no advantage.

B&H prices show the Nikon 500/4 @ $10,296, the Canon 500/4 @ $8999, the Sigma 500/4 @ $5,999, and the Pentax 560/5.6 @ only $4,999. No doubt, one can find gray-market or used f/4 glass for somewhat less but then one can probably find gray-market or used f/5.6 glass for even less. There's clearly a segment of the market that will gladly overpay for large apertures bragging rights.

[biz-engineer]

In theory, f/4 glass may allow more accurate focus but whether it happens in practice or affects a meaningful fraction of images is another matter.

I currently use the DFA150-450, since the EFCS of the K1 and some earlier experience, the primary reason for drop of IQ is mirror and shutter shock. 450mm on crop can deliver very good IQ. Basically, Ricoh have enable EFCS on the KP when using OVF, which is a good thing, that + lower high iso noise may deliver the goods without needing to buy a 560mm lens. That's a stretch for someone not willing to spend big $ on a long prime. My 2 cents.

can't set them up quickly, and can't move fast enough to get good shots

Hum , that's arguable. Motion scare away wildlife, the size of the lens does not matter much in a hide or mounted on car window.
The whole point of long lenses if to get more reach when the subject can't be close enough, and have sufficient shutter speed and iso not to high to ensure good IQ.

[normhead]

Regarding teleconvertors: I love them for their convenience of producing SOOC images with longer reach but it's also very clear that do no better than cropping when it comes to critical image quality. In terms of "print-big keepers", TCs seem to offer no advantage.

I started a thread on this topic.
Understanding folks saying a TC doesn't ad more detail. - PentaxForums.com

You have to know when to use it, but you can get a lot more detail out of a TC.

[luftfluss]

It's true. A while ago I was shooting beside a guy with a Nikon 600 ƒ4, I had my A-400 ƒ5.6 He looked at my lens and said "I don't shoot ƒ 5.6". It's an attitude that's out there among many long glass shooters.

You should have beaten that jackass in the head with your A400/5.6, and while he was on the ground bleeding told him, "lucky for you I shoot f/5.6, because if that were an f/4 lens, you'd be dead".

[cali92rs]

What's sad is those big-glass shooters probably lose more photos than they gain because of they can't carry their obese lenses very far, can't set them up quickly, and can't move fast enough to get good shots. They might claim their machine gun cameras and tracking AF gets them a better "keeper rate" but the person with lighter gear gets more and better photos because they have a much higher "starter rate."

Look at all the tack sharp in focus bird in flight shots...nothing sad about that:


Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS USM Lens | Flickr


I bet their keeper rate is just fine.

[normhead]

Look at all the tack sharp in focus bird in flight shots...nothing sad about that:


Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS USM Lens | Flickr


I bet their keeper rate is just fine.

Those lenses do have their uses. but they aren't much use where I live. The confined spaces and dense brush mean there are no distance shots to be had. They are the right tool for some jobs, where I live the guys with the ƒ4 glass are at a disadvantage a lot of the time. Many of them carry a second body with a zoom on it. That way they have the best of both worlds.

It happens at least half the time that the big lenses are set up unmanned while the photographers are stalking with their zoom and second bodies. I've sometimes wondered, if I had a van with a side door and someone to just snatch all the un-attended lenses as I drove by, how much could we scoop in 1 minute.

I'm guessing there are times we could scoop $40,000.

Their keeper rate is just fine, it's just not what I get a lot of the time...

One of my favourite examples. The sun and the animal are on my side of the tree.





Although in all fairness, I did also have snow shoes on. Most of them couldn't have made it to my shooting position.

The line up in the parking lot, count the thousands of dollars.