|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
09-20-2016, 04:24 AM
|
| |
Silver button? Isn't that just a reflection?
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
09-20-2016, 03:55 AM
|
| |
I tried googling about goats and salt, all I've got were cooking recipes. Are you planning to feed kenspo into spilling the beans? :confused:
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
09-20-2016, 03:12 AM
|
| |
That would be neat, I'd buy it in a heartbeat - I'm using my K-1 with a K-7 leather strap, and its performance suffers because of that :p
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
09-15-2016, 03:53 AM
|
| |
2082 euro īn Romānia. Well, I have mine...
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
09-13-2016, 12:06 PM
|
| |
With Leica they don't make lenses like the D FA* 70-200, either.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
09-13-2016, 10:56 AM
|
| |
Hmm... hard to say. It appears Ricoh Imaging has more employees, but concluding anything beyond that is dangerous.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
09-13-2016, 10:23 AM
|
| |
Ricoh Imaging is a small company. There is some benefit of being part of the much larger Ricoh Group, but otherwise it has to stand on its own.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
09-13-2016, 09:58 AM
|
| |
You haven't been paying attention ;)
---------- Post added 13-09-16 at 07:59 PM ----------
No rumor, but there's some information and a leak ;)
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
09-13-2016, 09:02 AM
|
| |
Excellent quote. Yes, that's why I'm not worried about it - it's the silence which shows the things are bad.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
09-13-2016, 08:43 AM
|
| |
That's the modus operandi: find one thing that Pentax lacks; if not, find one thing where they're weaker and exaggerate it. A lot. Lying a bit (at least by omission) is admissible. It's not about loving primes, but hating Pentax.
So we now have Nikon as a living example of why primes are so much important than zooms - despite Nikon having a full range of zooms..
In the meanwhile, customers are patiently waiting, knowing their patience will be rewarded.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
09-12-2016, 03:47 PM
|
| |
Another thing - something I pointed out some time ago, but who cares to remember :p
The 3 Tamrons all have the same max aperture - f/1.8. OTOH, on the Pentax lens roadmap, the Standard and Medium Telephoto lenses are Large Aperture, while the Wide-Angle isn't - this is suggesting different maximum apertures (nope, 35mm is not an Ultra Wide-Angle lens).
I'd guess we'll find out at Photokina, we should see some prototypes there.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
09-12-2016, 03:38 PM
|
| |
It's the other way around - just because these Tamrons are optically good is not enough reason for Pentax to rebadge them. No, wishing for Pentax to close its Vietnam lens factory is not a reason ;)
Rebadging has some disadvantages or rather limitations, for example a rebadged Tamron won't be a D FA* but a "mere" D FA (thus, no AW, no ABC, no D FA*-grade build). And a Pentax-made D FA* might have a more ambitious optical design (see the 70-200) - for a price.
Also, there's this thought of paying more and getting a Tamron... do it for too many products, and there would be few reasons to buy Pentax (instead of Canon/Nikon and the Tamron original).
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
09-12-2016, 02:01 PM
|
| |
Of course they have an optical design team in place - the D FA* 70-200, D FA 150-450, D FA 28-105 didn't just materialized on some desk. Yes, there are optical patents to prove they belong to Ricoh Imaging (you can easily find the 70-200 and the 28-105 - search for the "100-300" and "35-80" on this forum section).
The "outsourced" lenses are the D FA 15-30 and D FA 24-70. Just two lenses. So let's stop pretending Pentax/Ricoh is incapable to design their own lenses.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
09-12-2016, 08:54 AM
|
| |
OK, so N people would avoid Pentax K-1 because they don't have those 3 modern lenses (and existing ones are deemed as not good enough - including the Sigma 35mm Art). Fine; I'll accept that argument.
Now, M people would had avoided Pentax K-1 if no f/2.8 zooms were available.
Uluru's challenge - if he would accept it - is to prove that N > M. I dare him to try.
(alternatively, he could try to prove that postponing the Pentax K-1 for at least an year would bring Ricoh Imaging additional revenue comparing with selling ;) )
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
09-12-2016, 02:21 AM
|
| |
No, Uluru got it wrong, as Pentax-bashing always does. So far, Pentax/Ricoh did exactly what was right.
#1. The zooms were required. 15 to 200mm with f/2.8 zooms, that makes the K-1 a serious proposition. Then there's the 150-450 as a longer option, and an affordable 28-105 "kit" zoom.
Pentax/Ricoh did very well launching these lenses. Previously, Pentax had no FF zoom lens in production.
Oh, and said zooms are impossible to replace by primes. ;)
#2. The prime situation is less dramatic, with 10 official FF lenses in production (not even counting the DAs which cover the format, with limitations).
35mm? There's the 31mm Limited, and the FA 35mm f/2 (and, apparently, the DA 35mm f/2.4 works quite well)
50mm? Two 50mm, the old FA and the macro. The 43mm is close enough, and the DA* 55 might work stopped down.
85mm? How about 77mm?
It's perfectly understandable why primes were second, instead of first priority.
#3. Pentax/Ricoh has limited capacity; thus, delivering the 3 primes before the K-1 actually means delivering the K-1 after the 3 primes. In other words, delivering the K-1 in 2017 or later. Isn't this a brilliant move? :rolleyes:
(postponing the zooms is not an option, because of #1+#2)
#4. You should guess this one... yep, Pentax/Ricoh has a solution, they don't need some angry post insulting them into action. There are no less than 4 D FA primes on the public roadmap:
- a Wide-Angle Single Focus Lens
- a Large Aperture Single Focus Lens
- a Large Aperture Medium Telephoto Single Focus Lens, and
- a Large Aperture Ultra-Wide Single Focus Lens
http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/japan/products/lens/images/K_Mount_D_FA_Lens_Roadmap.pdf
#5. His "second reason", using these lenses on a crop camera, makes even less sense. First, because Pentax has more APS-C primes (so it's much less of a problem than for FF), and second, because it makes no sense to postpone the K-1 if you're going to use said lenses on a crop camera.
#6. Last but not least, I'm curious if Uluru will buy any of the new primes. My guess is that he's all talk.
By the way, I will get one or two of them.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
09-07-2016, 02:54 PM
|
| |
As a backup plan, there might be a Pentax D FA 50(ish)mm f/1.4(ish), next year (or later). I'm talking about the "Large Aperture Standard Single Focus Lens" from the roadmap.
But, there's always a risk with such things - that it won't be exactly what you want, that you won't like its rendering/size/aspect/whatever...
As for people who want Sigma lenses: buy Sigma lenses. What's available, of course. IMO that's the only way to convince them to launch more lenses ;)
(don't count on me, though... I'm saving for next years' D FA primes, and perhaps the 150-450).
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
09-04-2016, 07:31 AM
|
| |
Oh, but we can - and should - dismiss it.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
09-03-2016, 02:55 AM
|
| |
Nicolas, there is no such thing as "option 1". Pentax will not have a D500-level APS-C flagship anytime soon, but a K-3 successor will be made.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
09-03-2016, 12:08 AM
|
| |
Why is the 2nd option "extreme"? Is it because of the 10fps burst rate? Otherwise, it looks like I'm reading about a very typical new Pentax APS-C flagship...
And why should we even consider "Extreme 1"? A non-zero probability is not the same as a non-negligible probability.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
09-02-2016, 09:55 AM
|
| |
I will point out, once again, that I consider a mistake to think in terms of "this, or that" - the decision to make a lens APS-C or FF should be (and is) made on a case by case basis.
So, the APS-C lenses which gives the format a price advantage should continue to exist. But can you see any justification for making an APS-C 200mm f/2.8? Pentax couldn't be bothered to restrict the DA* because there was nothing to be gained from it. Then, there are cases in which there is some saving in making an APS-C version - but is it worth making an APS-C and FF version of an otherwise the same lens? Probably not.
Which gives us back to the idea that the D FA lens line is helping APS-C, too - even if it might not be an optimal solution.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
09-02-2016, 09:45 AM
|
| |
No, it doesn't: both lenses are (in the context of this discussion) on APS-C. We were talking about what it means to use FF lenses on APS-C bodies.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
09-02-2016, 08:54 AM
|
| |
But you can't compare a 50-135 with a 70-200mm either; those will give you different angles of view. You'd have to find a D FA* 50-135 f/2.8.
Don't forget the context: it was claimed that a FF lens is 2.68x more expensive in average than an APS-C version.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
09-02-2016, 08:24 AM
|
| |
My point is that you cannot compare - let's say - a 50-200 f3.5-5.6 with a D FA* 70-200 f/2.8 and claim that the FF lens is so much larger and outrageously expensive. In order to support your point, you'd have to find a DA 70-200 f/2.8 of similar quality to the D FA. Or, find a D FA (50)70-200 f/3.5-5.6 and make the comparison at the lower end.
In order to generalize, you'd have to find out quite a few similar examples.
|
