iudex: Since the introduction of the prototypes (without exact specification) I knew these would be FF lenses. Not only they looked huge (not typical for DA lenses), but their expected focal range was typical for FF lenses (70-200mm).So now Pentax (sorry, Ricoh, I cannot get accustomed to this) has 8 fullframe lenses even before the introduction of a FF body (FA Limiteds 31, 43 and 77mm, FA 50/1,4, DFA 50mm, DFA 100mm and this two new telezooms). Actually the only lens missing is a standard zoom, something like 24-70mm and Pentax FF camera can go on sale.P.S. Not mentioning the fact some DA lenses are rumoured to actually cover FF sensor.
Good point. It would probably be no big problem for Tamron/Sigma to change mount to existing FF lenses which are now available for C/N only.
petreluk: The image released suggests a classic DSLR. It's pretty brave of Ricoh to do this since technology and perhaps the market point the other way, towards smaller, mirrorless cameras with better IQ from new-gen sensors. Only time will tell whether this is a Quixotic gesture since Ricoh will need to sell several tens of thousands of these beyond the couple of hundred gear heads and their test charts on an Internet site. The quality of the two newly announced FF telezooms will be crucial in this regard. If they are anything less than stellar then some of the fans on here will start to drifts away. Still, who wouldn't applaud a Quixotic gesture from an industry short on romance and pizazz.
I don´t think FF DSLRs are selling poorly. Canon and Nikon are investing heavily in FF cameras and they seemingly see a huge potential of this segment (Nikon has 5! FF cameras). Plus long time Pentax users still have many FF lenses so it would be not a problem to step up and buy a FF. I have only 2 Pentax lenses now but one of them is FF lens and the rest of my lenses would not be useless on FF body, they could work in crop mode (so basically just like they work now). So going FF for me would not mean dumping my glass, I could use all of them and maybe need to buy only a lens or two (not mentioning all the accesories are usable too). OTOH going mirrorless would mean giving all my lenses away and start building a completely new system, so buying e.g. a MFT camera would cost more money than going FF.
QuarryCat: it looks like a small 67 - ok fullframe with 50 MP is today what medium format was in the old days.I am shire the camera will come, but as an old Pentax photographer I wouldn't buy it. It needs new lenses and it is far to late and Pentax has full frame already with the 645Z.Pentax has still trouble with a fast and precise autofocus - compared to Canon and Nikon systems - and even the K3 and 645Z are years back behind a fast autofocus.I think Pentax should build lenses for every mount, but after the Pentax LX was gone, no more real good Pentax camera arrived.
Look at Sony a7, how many FF lenses did it start with? Even now Pentax has 8 FF lenses (6 FA/DFA primes and this 2 zooms) and that´s months before introduction of the FF body. So it is sufficient to make one standard zoom (like 24-70mm) and the camera will sufficiently equipped for the start. More lenses will surely come.
Davidfstop: Yes! But is it too late?I have been a pentax devotee since my late teens, and still shoot with my K7. I kept hanging on in hope.But, as other posters have commented, price and a couple of legacy features will be important. Olympus have a new camera Em-D M5 mk2 which just might be the one to jump ship for, with a good review and starting price + features desirable to a keen mountain walker and photographer.It's just getting harder to make decisions.Come on Pentax! (I mean, come on Ricoh)!
"oder" :-) Gentleman is from Germany, nicht wahr?
Anastigmat: Pentax probably thought that it never needed to release a FF DSLR camera, but recent changes in the market place have changed that. The recent slump in the camera market is due to the saturation of the APS-C market. Practically anybody who has wanted an APS-C camera has already bought at least 1, and so they are tired to upgrading to another APS-C model. Many of these APS-C camera owners have also upgraded to FF models, therefore the only segment of the market that is growing is FF. Canon and Nikon have also slashed FF prices recently, making the APS-C market even less enticing.
The future of the DSLR camera is FF. There is no turning back. Cameras like the Canon 7D MkII will be the last high end APS-C marketed, and it will have no successor. Even mirrorless models like the ones Fuji and Samsung have been making will also be impacted as they are becoming more expensive than entry model FF cameras. FF cameras will likely be selling for around $1K in the near future.
QuaryCat: agreed. There is and will be market place for APSC cameras, since not every enthusiast is able to pay thousands for FF camera and lenses, plus there is the bulk of FF (a reason why many FF users switched to mirrorless). OTOH as market of APSC DLSRs is shrinking there is obvious reason to expand to FF, since this market is constantly rising.
Martinka: 2020 g, this lens is by far the heaviest of all the other 70-200/2.8 lenses
Pentax is famous for being able to make really small lenses (e.g. my fullframe 100mm/2,8 is only 340g, really tiny), so I believe they could make the lenses smaller. So when these lenses are that heavy (lot of glass) I expect nothing but the best optical quality.Btw. have a look at Fuji zoom lenses, they are critisized for being huge, but for a reason: they are sophisticated and optically amazing.
Since the introduction of the prototypes (without exact specification) I knew these would be FF lenses. Not only they looked huge (not typical for DA lenses), but their expected focal range was typical for FF lenses (70-200mm).So now Pentax (sorry, Ricoh, I cannot get accustomed to this) has 8 fullframe lenses even before the introduction of a FF body (FA Limiteds 31, 43 and 77mm, FA 50/1,4, DFA 50mm, DFA 100mm and this two new telezooms). Actually the only lens missing is a standard zoom, something like 24-70mm and Pentax FF camera can go on sale.P.S. Not mentioning the fact some DA lenses are rumoured to actually cover FF sensor.
Peiasdf: That's some expensive 70-200. It better be better than Canon's IS II version to warrant that price.
Why does it need to be better than Canon lens? Can you use Canon lens on Pentax camera? ;-)P.S. I see what you meant, but you chose a wrong example, you should have mentioned real comptetition like Sigma or Tamron that can actually be bought with Pentax mount.
Great news. The announcement of a 70-200mm zoom indicated a lot (it´s a typical FF lens) and now it´s official. It does not mean it will be introduced next week or month, but it is pretty sure it will be this year, I guess in summer.Well, maybe it´s time to think about upgrade, my obvious choice to step up from my current K-30 would be the K-3, but now... the future looks bright. :-)
This camera (as well as latest Fuji releases) shows that Fuji is not really interested in entry-level market and concentrates on higher level. The smallest/cheapest Fuji CSCs are not as small as the competition (Sony, Oly, Pana) and also Fuji has no small lenses to match entry-level bodies.Apart from 27mm/2,8 all other lenses are fairly big (even primes) and the kit zoom 16-50 is much bigger than kit zooms from Sony or M4/3. So instead of making useless new generation cam Fuji should concentrate on making suitable lenses, i.e. pancake primes and retractable zooms.
A "new generation" that brings less than most firmware upgrades. :-/If Samsung followed the same way it woud call the last NX1 firmware upgrade a NX2.
The macaque with an iPhone really got me; a photo of the year! Awesome. But all are great photos.
iudex: A truly interesting lens and from the specs it looks like a perfect allrounder for me. I had a Tamron 17-50/2,8 lens and I really loved it for it´s combination of useful range and fast aperture. However the optical quality was not that great and also I could imagine a bit wider and longer end. This new Fujinon offers both: wider (with 16mm I could live without other wideangle lens) and 5mm at the tele end is nice too. Seeing the complex and expensive optical construction and knowing the quality of Fujinon XF lenses I expect nothing but superb optical quality. To this point everything looks great. However complicated construction means big and heavy lens which somehow negates the advantages of a CSC. And paying 1200 EUR for a standard zoom is insane. I know I cannot compare it to the cheap and subpar Tamron 17-50 for 1/4 of the price, but comparing to my Sigma 18-35/1,8 I cannot stop wondering why the Fuji has to cost 70% more than the optically amazing Sigma. cont.
Conrad: nice lens selection. :-)Of course you are right the 18-35 cannot in any way serve as portrait lens, whereas 16-55 at tele end can (i used my 17-50 at 50mm and f2,8 for portraits and it can be done, however it is not ideal). As I said, 16-55/2,8 is great universal lens and I would be quite happy if something like this was made for Px mount.OTOH there are people who get on with only prime lenses (you said that too) and the Sig18-35/1,8 can substitute easily lenses like Fuji´s 18mm/2, 27mm/2,8 and partially the35mm/1,4 without the need of switching.The Sigma is not very light, that´s true, but I travelled (hiked) a whole day holding the camera in one hand without problems, so a lighter Fuji 16-55 would be perfectly portable for me.But we got far from the initial thought that the Fujinon is pretty expensive and big given it´s "only" f2,8, nas no OIS and is made for CSC with shorter flange distance. Maybe the price falls down later, right now it´s a pretty pricey glass.
... so instead of e.g. 18mm, 27 mm and 35mm primes you have only one lens covering it all and - most importantly - with comparable outcome and quality.Anyhow I do not by any means want to bash the Fujinon, on the contrary, I like the Fujinons useful focal range and if I had to choose only one single lens, it would be this 16-55/2,8.
Conrad: The Sigma is of course limited due to the short focal range, however it still covers the most used focal lengths. Re: "is unusable as a primary lens for portrait work..." which short standard zoom is a PRIMARY lens for portraits? None. For portraits you need much longer FL, ideally between 85 and 150mm (I use 100mm), so whethet the standard zoom reaches 35 or 50mm is from this perspective irrelevant.Anyhow these standard zooms are all competitors since they cover the most used focal lengths and none of them can serve as the only lens, they are not long enough, nor wide enough and need to be accompanied by other lenses (UW, portrait, tele). So for me they are alternatives (and I actually changed from 17-50 to 18-35).You can also look at the Sigma as a great substitute for couple of prime lenses: it offers prime lens quality (sharpness wide open is even better than some primes) and prime lens speed... (cont.)
Thorsten: the Sigma´s MSRP at launch was 799 USD, so the difference to Fujinon launch price is still considerable 400 USD. In different words: Fujinon is 50% more expensive then the (groundbreaking) Sigma.
Conrad: they are of course different, but the shorter FL of Sigma is outweighed (construction-wise) by much better luminosity (which is an optical challenge noone has repeated by now). Btw. the Sigma build quality is top-notch, easily on par with my all-metal Limited Pentax.
cont.The Sigma is optically top notch (Art line) and construction-wise a more complicated lens (it has f1,8, i.e. 1,3 EV faster) and costs 700 EUR. I somehow cannot convince myself to believe the Fujinon is worth paying 1200 EUR. P.S. all the thoughts are of course theoretical, since I do not own a Fuji CSC and compare CSC lens to DSLR lenses. If I had a Fuji CSC, I would have no other choice if I wanted a zoom with similar specs.
A truly interesting lens and from the specs it looks like a perfect allrounder for me. I had a Tamron 17-50/2,8 lens and I really loved it for it´s combination of useful range and fast aperture. However the optical quality was not that great and also I could imagine a bit wider and longer end. This new Fujinon offers both: wider (with 16mm I could live without other wideangle lens) and 5mm at the tele end is nice too. Seeing the complex and expensive optical construction and knowing the quality of Fujinon XF lenses I expect nothing but superb optical quality. To this point everything looks great. However complicated construction means big and heavy lens which somehow negates the advantages of a CSC. And paying 1200 EUR for a standard zoom is insane. I know I cannot compare it to the cheap and subpar Tamron 17-50 for 1/4 of the price, but comparing to my Sigma 18-35/1,8 I cannot stop wondering why the Fuji has to cost 70% more than the optically amazing Sigma. cont.
In all other votings my choice was the same as the choice of the majority (LX100, Sigma Art 50mm, Sony a6000) and I think those are deserved winners. However in this category I differ and am quite surprised by the leaders. I voted for Pentax 645Z, Nikon D750 and Sony. Pentax for bringing medium format quality and MPx count into a portable body for great price; Nikon for making almost perfect balance between features, picture quality and price and a7s for reminding that megapixels are not everything and for insane lowlight capability and high ISO quality. Anyhow I expected 7D II to lead, followed either by Nikons pro DSLRs or Sony a7s.